Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Will the Lib Dems win more seats than the Tories? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,560
edited 6:23AM in General
Will the Lib Dems win more seats than the Tories? – politicalbetting.com

I am not sure there’s any value in backing either side of this bet (due to the payout timeframe) but it shows the pickle Kemi Badenoch’s Tory party finds itself in that the Lib Dems are just 6/5 to win more seats at the next general election than the Tories.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,676
    Winning here
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,321
    Second like the Tories
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134

    Second like the Tories

    You're anticipating Labour will be fourth? :hushed:
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,036

    Second like the Tories

    Surely fourth, like the Tories?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,719
    It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

    If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 931
    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,062
    HYUFD said:

    It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

    If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour

    Both Labour and Tories should make Ed Davey prime minister. Seems fair?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,720
    Good morning, everyone.

    They could, if they ever crawl out of their comfort zone. Middle-class, liberal city-dwelling and rocket sandwich-devouring supporters are all well and good, but if they want to get well into triple figures they need to be able to get at least centrists on side, if not the soft right.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,053
    The Tories could finish fifth, behind the SNP, although they may still finish ahead of the Greens and Plaid.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,519
    edited 6:49AM
    Morning all
    Polling start to the morning with YouGov this week
    Ref 28 (=)
    Lab 26 (=)
    Con 16 (-1)
    LD 15 (-1)
    Green 11 (+1)

    And Sky/MiC have a Senedd poll out which will cheer Labour up a bit as they are back in the game, another absolute shocker for the Tories though
    🔷Reform: 28%
    🌼 Plaid Cymru: 26%
    🌹 Labour: 23%
    🌳 Conservatives: 10%
    🟠 Lib Dems: 7%
    🟩 Green:4%
    ⬜️Other: 2%
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134
    FPT
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

    On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

    Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
    I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

    For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

    And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

    There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

    You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
    I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

    You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

    If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
    Answer the questions above then:

    a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

    b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

    c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

    @hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

    The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
    Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

    You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
    You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

    The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

    You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

    Come on tell me what I should have done then?
    Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
    I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

    It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

    It is a reasonable whinge.
    It is means tested...
    You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

    Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
    There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
    So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
    So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

    I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
    As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

    Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

    The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
    God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

    So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

    What the hell was I supposed to do?

    And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
    So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

    Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

    Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.
    They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

    It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

    As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

    For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
    I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

    What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

    How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

    Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

    Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
    So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

    It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

    It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
    As usual showing your ignorance.

    Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

    Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

    Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

    It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

    It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
    I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

    By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

    The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

    It is not a tax return in anyway.

    Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
    Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

    Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

    Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

    So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
    Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

    a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

    b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
    No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
    This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

    WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

    Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134
    edited 6:50AM
    Sean_F said:

    The Tories could finish fifth, behind the SNP, although they may still finish ahead of the Greens and Plaid.

    If they don't finish ahead of Plaid, who have a realistic ceiling of 6 seats, then it really is all over. Even in their darkest days under Clement Davies the Liberals never dipped *that* low (well, OK, they were reduced to six on several occasions, but never under).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,070

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134
    edited 6:53AM
    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,074
    As an order-of-magnitude check, Lib Dem target 25 is Fareham & Waterlooville;

    Conservative 17,561 35.04%
    Labour 11,482 22.91%
    Liberal Democrat 9,533 19.02%
    Reform UK 9,084 18.12%

    Not as nice a place as many current Lib Dem seats, and it would depend on a pretty helpful RefCon split, but far from crazy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,769
    ydoethur said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    It's not really that surprising, Corbynites and Fukkers are both essentially yelling 'it's all wrong' while putting up fantasy solutions that sound attractive unless you examine them in depth.
    Or, indeed, at all.
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 931
    edited 6:55AM
    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.

    She also could be very strongly described as a low information voter who will have no real understanding of any parties actual policies.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,445
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

    On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

    Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
    I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

    For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

    And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

    There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

    You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
    I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

    You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

    If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
    Answer the questions above then:

    a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

    b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

    c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

    @hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

    The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
    Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

    You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
    You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

    The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

    You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

    Come on tell me what I should have done then?
    Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
    I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

    It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

    It is a reasonable whinge.
    It is means tested...
    You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

    Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
    There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
    So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
    So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

    I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
    As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

    Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

    The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
    God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

    So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

    What the hell was I supposed to do?

    And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
    So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

    Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

    Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.
    They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

    It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

    As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

    For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
    I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

    What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

    How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

    Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

    Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
    So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

    It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

    It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
    As usual showing your ignorance.

    Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

    Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

    Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

    It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

    It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
    I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

    By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

    The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

    It is not a tax return in anyway.

    Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
    Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

    Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

    Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

    So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
    Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

    a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

    b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
    No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
    This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

    WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

    Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.
    Did they have a break for sleep or have HYUFD and khj been battling all night?

    We might need cricket rules on here. Stop for bad light - or more when there's more heat than light :wink:

    Mind you, the former would give leftist extremist atheist IanB2 an unfair advantage in his current location!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040

    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.
    That's PB for the chop, then, if she gets her way.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134
    Selebian said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

    On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

    Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
    I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

    For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

    And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

    There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

    You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
    I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

    You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

    If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
    Answer the questions above then:

    a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

    b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

    c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

    @hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

    The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
    Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

    You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
    You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

    The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

    You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

    Come on tell me what I should have done then?
    Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
    I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

    It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

    It is a reasonable whinge.
    It is means tested...
    You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

    Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
    There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
    So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
    So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

    I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
    As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

    Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

    The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
    God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

    So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

    What the hell was I supposed to do?

    And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
    So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

    Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

    Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.
    They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

    It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

    As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

    For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
    I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

    What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

    How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

    Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

    Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
    So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

    It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

    It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
    As usual showing your ignorance.

    Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

    Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

    Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

    It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

    It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
    I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

    By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

    The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

    It is not a tax return in anyway.

    Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
    Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

    Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

    Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

    So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
    Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

    a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

    b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
    No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
    This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

    WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

    Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.
    Did they have a break for sleep or have HYUFD and khj been battling all night?

    We might need cricket rules on here. Stop for bad light - or more when there's more heat than light :wink:

    Mind you, the former would give leftist extremist atheist IanB2 an unfair advantage in his current location!
    That would close PB pretty quickly.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,720
    F1: Ep28 covers the British Grand Prix, mostly me being delighted about Hulkenberg's podium. Also, I disagreed with the Piastri penalty when i recorded this and (as of right now) still do but there's some stuff I want to check (not the Russell Canada PSI, seen that already) and will probably explain why I either still hold the view or disagree next time.

    Another interesting feature was how the rookies DNFed all over the place. And now Norris is only 8 points behind Piastri.

    Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/british-grand-prix-2025-piastri-s-penalty-rookies-fumble-hulk-smashes-the-podium/

    Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/british-grand-prix-2025-piastris-penalty-rookies-fumble/id1786574257?i=1000716287411

    Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5flCa6NPVQenJw3uH5pLK3

    Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/d0fc6daf-0d27-42a2-9ce7-a1adcefad653/undercutters---f1-podcast-british-grand-prix-2025-piastri’s-penalty-rookies-fumble-hulk-smashes-the-podium

    Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/07/british-grand-prix-2025-piastris.html
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,745
    ...

    Morning all
    Polling start to the morning with YouGov this week
    Ref 28 (=)
    Lab 26 (=)
    Con 16 (-1)
    LD 15 (-1)
    Green 11 (+1)

    And Sky/MiC have a Senedd poll out which will cheer Labour up a bit as they are back in the game, another absolute shocker for the Tories though
    🔷Reform: 28%
    🌼 Plaid Cymru: 26%
    🌹 Labour: 23%
    🌳 Conservatives: 10%
    🟠 Lib Dems: 7%
    🟩 Green:4%
    ⬜️Other: 2%

    I know we are not allowed to call out BPC pollsters, but anecdotally speaking I think that is bollocks. I work throughout RedWall Wales and EVERYONE is deserting Labour for Reform, and those that aren't are going Plaid.

    In Port Talbot for example everyone is furious that Labour unilaterally closed the blast furnaces, we have had visits particularly from Nigel Farage, rueing the closure. Nigel says he will reopen them, presumably through some form of hitherto undisclosed magic, as they aren't "turn off and turn on able".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058
    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040
    Have we factored the Cons' sulk into our predictions. Don't misunderestimate the degree to which many Cons voters (who could they be I wonder) are still smarting about being thrown out of power after nigh on 15 years, natural party of government, bloody lefties gaining the whip hand, etc.

    Many might just have exited from the stage, interest-wise, and won't likely reanimate until an actual GE draws near. We are one year in of a four or five year term. Frankly, it's all performative and who cares.

    In the meantime the Refs and the Jezzas will make hay.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040
    edited 7:04AM
    Deleted - duplicate, although the point was worth making a couple of times.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,070

    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.

    She also could be very strongly described as a low information voter who will have no real understanding of any parties actual policies.
    Ok. Well there's the Farage coalition. Those sort of voters + anti-foreigner voters + ERG type tories. If he can hold that together he'll probably be the next PM.

    Supplementary question: did she vote Leave in 2016?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058
    Selebian said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

    On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

    Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
    I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

    For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

    And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

    There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

    You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
    I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

    You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

    If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
    Answer the questions above then:

    a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

    b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

    c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

    @hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

    The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
    Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

    You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
    You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

    The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

    You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

    Come on tell me what I should have done then?
    Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
    I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

    It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

    It is a reasonable whinge.
    It is means tested...
    You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

    Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
    There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
    So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
    So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

    I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
    As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

    Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

    The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
    God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

    So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

    What the hell was I supposed to do?

    And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
    So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

    Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

    Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.
    They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

    It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

    As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

    For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
    I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

    What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

    How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

    Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

    Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
    So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

    It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

    It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
    As usual showing your ignorance.

    Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

    Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

    Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

    It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

    It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
    I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

    By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

    The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

    It is not a tax return in anyway.

    Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
    Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

    Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

    Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

    So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
    Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

    a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

    b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
    No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
    This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

    WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

    Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.
    Did they have a break for sleep or have HYUFD and khj been battling all night?

    We might need cricket rules on here. Stop for bad light - or more when there's more heat than light :wink:

    HYUFD is surely the Chris Tavare of argument ?

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,745
    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Back in the day (just after the ITV drama) on PB after much debate and investigation we identified our two main culprits, so why can't the authorities act? Their names? Davey and Starmer.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,519
    edited 7:08AM

    ...

    Morning all
    Polling start to the morning with YouGov this week
    Ref 28 (=)
    Lab 26 (=)
    Con 16 (-1)
    LD 15 (-1)
    Green 11 (+1)

    And Sky/MiC have a Senedd poll out which will cheer Labour up a bit as they are back in the game, another absolute shocker for the Tories though
    🔷Reform: 28%
    🌼 Plaid Cymru: 26%
    🌹 Labour: 23%
    🌳 Conservatives: 10%
    🟠 Lib Dems: 7%
    🟩 Green:4%
    ⬜️Other: 2%

    I know we are not allowed to call out BPC pollsters, but anecdotally speaking I think that is bollocks. I work throughout RedWall Wales and EVERYONE is deserting Labour for Reform, and those that aren't are going Plaid.

    In Port Talbot for example everyone is furious that Labour unilaterally closed the blast furnaces, we have had visits particularly from Nigel Farage, rueing the closure. Nigel says he will reopen them, presumably through some form of hitherto undisclosed magic, as they aren't "turn off and turn on able".
    Tables arent out yet but they might give an idea on where Labour are apparently holding on.
    More in Common arent particularly Labour friendly in UK VI polls but tend to be a bit higher Con than YG etc so its certainly surprising. Its their first Senedd only poll i think, they did a couple of Wales only GE polls last year in the campaign
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,857
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

    On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

    Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
    I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

    For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

    And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

    There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

    You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
    I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

    You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

    If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
    Answer the questions above then:

    a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

    b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

    c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

    @hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

    The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
    Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

    You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
    You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

    The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

    You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

    Come on tell me what I should have done then?
    Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
    I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

    It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

    It is a reasonable whinge.
    It is means tested...
    You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

    Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
    There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
    So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
    So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

    I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
    As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

    Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

    The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
    God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

    So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

    What the hell was I supposed to do?

    And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
    So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

    Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

    Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.
    They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

    It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

    As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

    For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
    I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

    What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

    How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

    Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

    Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
    So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

    It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

    It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
    As usual showing your ignorance.

    Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

    Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

    Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

    It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

    It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
    I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

    By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

    The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

    It is not a tax return in anyway.

    Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
    Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

    Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

    Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

    So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
    Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

    a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

    b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
    No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
    This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

    WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

    Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.
    He also thinks that people claiming certain benefits don't have capital because they are poor (which of course is true), but doesn't get that this only happens because there is a capital test to stop people with capital claiming it in the first place. If not people with capital would claim it and his statement would not be true

    Here we go again: Dogs have 4 legs, so an animal with 4 legs is a dog is the @hyufd level of logic.

    So yes there are rich people on benefits. This particular benefit. WFA in fact. And it could be removed very easily in the same way as it is removed for all the other benefits that stop people with capital claiming them.

    I though @hyufd had got over this type of argument. I don't like @leon's use of the IQ argument, but sometimes it does have merit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058
    TOPPING said:

    Have we factored the Cons' sulk into our predictions. Don't misunderestimate the degree to which many Cons voters (who could they be I wonder) are still smarting about being thrown out of power after nigh on 15 years, natural party of government, bloody lefties gaining the whip hand, etc.

    Many might just have exited from the stage, interest-wise, and won't likely reanimate until an actual GE draws near. We are one year in of a four or five year term. Frankly, it's all performative and who cares.

    In the meantime the Refs and the Jezzas will make hay.

    Or jam, and arses of themselves.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,745
    edited 7:11AM
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.

    She also could be very strongly described as a low information voter who will have no real understanding of any parties actual policies.
    Ok. Well there's the Farage coalition. Those sort of voters + anti-foreigner voters + ERG type tories. If he can hold that together he'll probably be the next PM.

    Supplementary question: did she vote Leave in 2016?
    Farage is like the Childcatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Not so much offering sweeties to unsuspecting children but to hard of thinking voters.
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 931
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.

    She also could be very strongly described as a low information voter who will have no real understanding of any parties actual policies.
    Ok. Well there's the Farage coalition. Those sort of voters + anti-foreigner voters + ERG type tories. If he can hold that together he'll probably be the next PM.

    Supplementary question: did she vote Leave in 2016?
    She voted leave

    The EU is only there to serve the elites apparently
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,519
    TOPPING said:

    Have we factored the Cons' sulk into our predictions. Don't misunderestimate the degree to which many Cons voters (who could they be I wonder) are still smarting about being thrown out of power after nigh on 15 years, natural party of government, bloody lefties gaining the whip hand, etc.

    Many might just have exited from the stage, interest-wise, and won't likely reanimate until an actual GE draws near. We are one year in of a four or five year term. Frankly, it's all performative and who cares.

    In the meantime the Refs and the Jezzas will make hay.

    I factor it in to my expectations!
    Seriously though i think the return of the disinterested and fed up will keep them towards 100 seats at worst (say 80ish) and above the LDs. Theyll probably end up a bit better than that if their share recovers to low 20s generally and not just with a few pollsters
    If they end up genuinely facing wipeout theyll fold into Reform - Reform need their experience and they dont want to become extinct
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,728

    F1: Ep28 covers the British Grand Prix, mostly me being delighted about Hulkenberg's podium. Also, I disagreed with the Piastri penalty when i recorded this and (as of right now) still do but there's some stuff I want to check (not the Russell Canada PSI, seen that already) and will probably explain why I either still hold the view or disagree next time.

    Another interesting feature was how the rookies DNFed all over the place. And now Norris is only 8 points behind Piastri.

    Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/british-grand-prix-2025-piastri-s-penalty-rookies-fumble-hulk-smashes-the-podium/

    Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/british-grand-prix-2025-piastris-penalty-rookies-fumble/id1786574257?i=1000716287411

    Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5flCa6NPVQenJw3uH5pLK3

    Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/d0fc6daf-0d27-42a2-9ce7-a1adcefad653/undercutters---f1-podcast-british-grand-prix-2025-piastri’s-penalty-rookies-fumble-hulk-smashes-the-podium

    Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/07/british-grand-prix-2025-piastris.html

    I think Piastri's penalty was too harsh for the incident but I reckon FIA want to set a precedent now with Russell's mucking about in Canada not to mess around when leading behind the safety car.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058
    Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


    *For the avoidance of doubt.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
    A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Back in the day (just after the ITV drama) on PB after much debate and investigation we identified our two main culprits, so why can't the authorities act? Their names? Davey and Starmer.
    Davey doesn't come out of it well, or any other minister with direct responsibility. That being said, it appears to have been at least partly a fault of the civil service helping with the cover up, possibly with good intentions based on low information, limited curiosity and a certain lack of intellect.

    The solicitors and barristers who did the prosecuting, including falsifying paperwork, come out extremely badly.

    So do those who wrote the reports on the system for the Post Office and Fujitsu.

    So do the senior managers at those firms.

    So, frankly, do the courts. Their behaviour may have been due to frauds happening elsewhere in the system but it still sucked.

    However, I wonder if anyone will actually face justice at all. It seems from the outside to be a classic example of process injustice where blame always gets transferred to somebody else so pinning it on one person is very hard. Examples might be made of say, Parsons and Dilley after they were caught lying to the inquiry, but I won't hold my breath for any senior managers to serve prison time.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,074

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.

    She also could be very strongly described as a low information voter who will have no real understanding of any parties actual policies.
    Ok. Well there's the Farage coalition. Those sort of voters + anti-foreigner voters + ERG type tories. If he can hold that together he'll probably be the next PM.

    Supplementary question: did she vote Leave in 2016?
    She voted leave

    The EU is only there to serve the elites apparently
    The irony being that Zia Yusuf made his millions by creating a luxury concierge company.

    Literally serving the elites.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,070

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.

    She also could be very strongly described as a low information voter who will have no real understanding of any parties actual policies.
    Ok. Well there's the Farage coalition. Those sort of voters + anti-foreigner voters + ERG type tories. If he can hold that together he'll probably be the next PM.

    Supplementary question: did she vote Leave in 2016?
    She voted leave

    The EU is only there to serve the elites apparently
    Phew, great. I'd hate for one of my key working assumptions about RUK voters to bite the dust.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,720
    Pulpstar said:

    F1: Ep28 covers the British Grand Prix, mostly me being delighted about Hulkenberg's podium. Also, I disagreed with the Piastri penalty when i recorded this and (as of right now) still do but there's some stuff I want to check (not the Russell Canada PSI, seen that already) and will probably explain why I either still hold the view or disagree next time.

    Another interesting feature was how the rookies DNFed all over the place. And now Norris is only 8 points behind Piastri.

    Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/british-grand-prix-2025-piastri-s-penalty-rookies-fumble-hulk-smashes-the-podium/

    Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/british-grand-prix-2025-piastris-penalty-rookies-fumble/id1786574257?i=1000716287411

    Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5flCa6NPVQenJw3uH5pLK3

    Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/d0fc6daf-0d27-42a2-9ce7-a1adcefad653/undercutters---f1-podcast-british-grand-prix-2025-piastri’s-penalty-rookies-fumble-hulk-smashes-the-podium

    Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/07/british-grand-prix-2025-piastris.html

    I think Piastri's penalty was too harsh for the incident but I reckon FIA want to set a precedent now with Russell's mucking about in Canada not to mess around when leading behind the safety car.
    Potentially, but one thing I want to check is how his first restart was, because Piastri claims it was pretty much identical.

    I also think that a warning is possible (we see this with track limits and advice to hand a place back if gained off-track etc). And there was the possibility of a 5s penalty, instead of jumping to 10s, which is what Verstappen got for deliberately driving into Russell.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    I am spending the day in the garden sorting stuff for the shed which I have ordered. It is also a beautiful day.

    The second report will not hold people criminally responsible because a public inquiry cannot legally do that. It is one of their failings but it will apportion blame.

    In the meanwhile here is my Post Office Bingo Card for you to tick off:

    - The human impact was awful.
    - It was made worse by the conduct of the Post Office and others, including its lawyers and governments over many years.
    - It is still continuing.
    - Compensation is due, is urgent, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation or the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
    - Tribute will be paid to the SPMs.
    - The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and pretend that it has no power to do anything about compensation even though the Treasury's dead hands are all over it.
    - The Post Office will issue some PR guff about how sorry it is and how much it is doing. Someone will use the appalling phrase "at pace".
    - Most journalists will forget to ask why it is that Rodric Williams one of the shiftiest of the PO lawyers who gave evidence and who was heavily involved during the entire period when the problems were known about and covered up is now in charge of compensation at the Post Office.
    - The phrase "conflict of interest" will not be mentioned because no-one - other than me - seems to understand or recognise one, even when it is staring you in the face.
    - The government continues to think overturning convictions & giving out a few baubles is enough.
    - This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. It is Potemkin justice.

    Too cynical? Or just realistic? Let's see, shall we.
    I hope nobody tries to play that as a drinking game. Could have a very unfortunate effect on the liver.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,574
    HYUFD said:

    It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

    If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour

    Morning! What can your party do to remedy this situation? From the natural party of government to the prospect of being 4th within a single election cycle.

    Permit me two observations:
    1) The damage done to the party post Covid is cataclysmic and so many of you appear to be in utter denial. Yes this Labour government is getting worse by the day, but few people think "so lets go back to the Tories". They think you were even worse than this lot.
    2) The political zeitgeist has shifted considerably. Badenoch suffers from (1) very badly - to haughty to accept that she and her colleagues did a bad job - and is banging out about woke and bathrooms which aren't the issues people care about any more.

    What is the way back for you? It isn't "Labour collapsing and people making us the government again. They won't - not without a serious change of mindset firstly from your party and then from the electorate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,769
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134
    edited 7:23AM

    HYUFD said:

    It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

    If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour

    Morning! What can your party do to remedy this situation? From the natural party of government to the prospect of being 4th within a single election cycle.

    Permit me two observations:
    1) The damage done to the party post Covid is cataclysmic and so many of you appear to be in utter denial. Yes this Labour government is getting worse by the day, but few people think "so lets go back to the Tories". They think you were even worse than this lot.
    2) The political zeitgeist has shifted considerably. Badenoch suffers from (1) very badly - to haughty to accept that she and her colleagues did a bad job - and is banging out about woke and bathrooms which aren't the issues people care about any more.

    What is the way back for you? It isn't "Labour collapsing and people making us the government again. They won't - not without a serious change of mindset firstly from your party and then from the electorate.
    It's not so much post-Covid. They could have survived that, embarrassing as Partygate and Cumstain and the procurement fiascos all were.

    It's the Truss debacle that killed them.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 389
    TOPPING said:

    Have we factored the Cons' sulk into our predictions. Don't misunderestimate the degree to which many Cons voters (who could they be I wonder) are still smarting about being thrown out of power after nigh on 15 years, natural party of government, bloody lefties gaining the whip hand, etc.

    Many might just have exited from the stage, interest-wise, and won't likely reanimate until an actual GE draws near. We are one year in of a four or five year term. Frankly, it's all performative and who cares.

    In the meantime the Refs and the Jezzas will make hay.

    I think the "sulk factor" needs more serious analysis. It's not just lazy Tory voters that the Conservative party needs to worry about, it's lazy activists. How ready are they for a ground war? Their Polling Day Organisation used to be second to none, but it seems to have evaporated in the last five years. Also, the number of their councillors defecting ought to worry them - since the local elections in May they have lost over 70 councillors, in all directions - to ReformUK, to Independents, to the Lib Dems, even to Labour. They are not match fit at a constituency level.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,129
    Greetings from the arid wastelands of God's Own Country.

    Yorkshire Water imposing a hosepipe ban starting on Friday. After hiking our bills by a humongous percentage earlier in the year.

    I'm going to take advantage of the choice offered by privatisation and switch my supplier.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134

    Greetings from the arid wastelands of God's Own Country.

    Yorkshire Water imposing a hosepipe ban starting on Friday. After hiking our bills by a humongous percentage earlier in the year.

    I'm going to take advantage of the choice offered by privatisation and switch my supplier.

    I'm afraid Yorkshire Water will continue to take your piss for many years yet.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,183
    Norman Tebbit has died
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,574

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    Is immigration, boats, asylum seekers etc a big issue for her?
    Nope, shaking up the system and getting rid of the elites is.

    She also could be very strongly described as a low information voter who will have no real understanding of any parties actual policies.
    Ok. Well there's the Farage coalition. Those sort of voters + anti-foreigner voters + ERG type tories. If he can hold that together he'll probably be the next PM.

    Supplementary question: did she vote Leave in 2016?
    Farage is like the Childcatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Not so much offering sweeties to unsuspecting children but to hard of thinking voters.
    Genuine lol at this one.

    Its perfect. Farage the Childcatcher. Voters are enticed into his vehicle with the promise of sweeties, then find themselves inside a cage asking "how did we get in here?"

    Important caveat. In America we have people who voted for Trump now Pleading For Their Lives as Trump dismantles the things they need or are important to them. Farming foreign markets, Medicaid, their family members. These morons still pledge fealty to Trump.

    Their UK equivalents will not continue to pledge fealty to the Nigel if he screws them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    I am spending the day in the garden sorting stuff for the shed which I have ordered. It is also a beautiful day.

    The second report will not hold people criminally responsible because a public inquiry cannot legally do that. It is one of their failings but it will apportion blame.

    In the meanwhile here is my Post Office Bingo Card for you to tick off:

    - The human impact was awful.
    - It was made worse by the conduct of the Post Office and others, including its lawyers and governments over many years.
    - It is still continuing.
    - Compensation is due, is urgent, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation or the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
    - Tribute will be paid to the SPMs.
    - The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and pretend that it has no power to do anything about compensation even though the Treasury's dead hands are all over it.
    - The Post Office will issue some PR guff about how sorry it is and how much it is doing. Someone will use the appalling phrase "at pace".
    - Most journalists will forget to ask why it is that Rodric Williams one of the shiftiest of the PO lawyers who gave evidence and who was heavily involved during the entire period when the problems were known about and covered up is now in charge of compensation at the Post Office.
    - The phrase "conflict of interest" will not be mentioned because no-one - other than me - seems to understand or recognise one, even when it is staring you in the face.
    - The government continues to think overturning convictions & giving out a few baubles is enough.
    - This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. It is Potemkin justice.

    Too cynical? Or just realistic? Let's see, shall we.
    I am hoping for a slightly less Potemkin result than Aberfan; we'll see.
    Since both the legal profession and government are deeply implicated in this case, it's almost impossible to hold an enquiry without conflicts of interest. It would be good to have that explicitly recognised, even if no more than that; I'm not holding my breath either.

    Enjoy your day in the garden.

    As a puzzle for your next visit, do you have any ideas how we might improve social care ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,236
    Nigelb said:

    Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


    *For the avoidance of doubt.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
    A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.

    Once the beach side bars, hotels and casinos start rolling it’ll be fine. Perhaps fetching striped uniforms for the waiters and maids (which will be the maximum status that Gazans can expect)?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,719
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

    If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour

    Both Labour and Tories should make Ed Davey prime minister. Seems fair?
    A handful of Tories would prefer Davey over Farage although even many of them would back Reform over Labour
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,070
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    I am spending the day in the garden sorting stuff for the shed which I have ordered. It is also a beautiful day.

    The second report will not hold people criminally responsible because a public inquiry cannot legally do that. It is one of their failings but it will apportion blame.

    In the meanwhile here is my Post Office Bingo Card for you to tick off:

    - The human impact was awful.
    - It was made worse by the conduct of the Post Office and others, including its lawyers and governments over many years.
    - It is still continuing.
    - Compensation is due, is urgent, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation or the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
    - Tribute will be paid to the SPMs.
    - The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and pretend that it has no power to do anything about compensation even though the Treasury's dead hands are all over it.
    - The Post Office will issue some PR guff about how sorry it is and how much it is doing. Someone will use the appalling phrase "at pace".
    - Most journalists will forget to ask why it is that Rodric Williams one of the shiftiest of the PO lawyers who gave evidence and who was heavily involved during the entire period when the problems were known about and covered up is now in charge of compensation at the Post Office.
    - The phrase "conflict of interest" will not be mentioned because no-one - other than me - seems to understand or recognise one, even when it is staring you in the face.
    - The government continues to think overturning convictions & giving out a few baubles is enough.
    - This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. It is Potemkin justice.

    Too cynical? Or just realistic? Let's see, shall we.
    I hope nobody tries to play that as a drinking game. Could have a very unfortunate effect on the liver.
    In addition to "at pace", if we're very lucky indeed, there might be a "further and faster".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    The longer that's delayed, the less likely any successful prosecution.
    2028, and counting...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058

    Nigelb said:

    Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


    *For the avoidance of doubt.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
    A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.

    Once the beach side bars, hotels and casinos start rolling it’ll be fine. Perhaps fetching striped uniforms for the waiters and maids (which will be the maximum status that Gazans can expect)?
    ...In a letter responding to their claims, the office of Israel’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, said that displacing Palestinians or concentrating the population in one part of Gaza were not among the objectives of the operation.

    That statement was directly contradicted by Katz, said Prof Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    The defence minister laid out clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Goldberg said, and the creation of “a concentration camp or a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them”.

    “It is neither humanitarian nor a city,” he said of Katz’s planned holding area for Palestinians.

    “A city is a place where you have possibilities of work, of earning money, of making connections and freedom of movement.

    “There are hospitals, schools, universities and offices. This is not what they have in mind. It will not be a livable place, just as the ‘safe areas’ are unliveable now.”..
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    Being in the game, I'm sure you will agree, however, that the prospect of a trial in three years' time is significant punishment for those involved and likely to be defendants. Everyone always wants things tied up - one way or the other - as quickly as possible and, innocent or guilty, these peoples' lives will be ruined for the years leading up to the trial. And no bad thing, either.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,596
    edited 7:37AM

    ...

    Morning all
    Polling start to the morning with YouGov this week
    Ref 28 (=)
    Lab 26 (=)
    Con 16 (-1)
    LD 15 (-1)
    Green 11 (+1)

    And Sky/MiC have a Senedd poll out which will cheer Labour up a bit as they are back in the game, another absolute shocker for the Tories though
    🔷Reform: 28%
    🌼 Plaid Cymru: 26%
    🌹 Labour: 23%
    🌳 Conservatives: 10%
    🟠 Lib Dems: 7%
    🟩 Green:4%
    ⬜️Other: 2%

    I know we are not allowed to call out BPC pollsters, but anecdotally speaking I think that is bollocks. I work throughout RedWall Wales and EVERYONE is deserting Labour for Reform, and those that aren't are going Plaid.

    In Port Talbot for example everyone is furious that Labour unilaterally closed the blast furnaces, we have had visits particularly from Nigel Farage, rueing the closure. Nigel says he will reopen them, presumably through some form of hitherto undisclosed magic, as they aren't "turn off and turn on able".
    Farage is happy to offer the impossible because it won’t be him delivering the bad news it will be the Reform candidate they elected under false pretenses in 2028/9.

    Redcar is exactly the same sort of seat, the blast furnace was the main employer and since then they’ve voted party who offered hope, Labour, party who offered hope, Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,719
    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

    On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

    Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
    I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

    For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

    And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

    There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

    You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
    I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

    You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

    If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
    Answer the questions above then:

    a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

    b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

    c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

    @hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

    The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
    Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

    You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
    You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

    The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

    You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

    Come on tell me what I should have done then?
    Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
    I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

    It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

    It is a reasonable whinge.
    It is means tested...
    You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

    Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
    There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
    So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
    So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

    I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
    As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

    Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

    The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
    God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

    So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

    What the hell was I supposed to do?

    And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
    So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

    Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

    Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.
    They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

    It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

    As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

    For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
    I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

    What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

    How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

    Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

    Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
    So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

    It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

    It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
    As usual showing your ignorance.

    Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

    Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

    Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

    It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

    It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
    I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

    PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

    By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

    The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

    It is not a tax return in anyway.

    Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
    Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

    Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

    Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

    So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
    Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

    a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

    b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
    No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
    This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

    WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

    Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.
    He also thinks that people claiming certain benefits don't have capital because they are poor (which of course is true), but doesn't get that this only happens because there is a capital test to stop people with capital claiming it in the first place. If not people with capital would claim it and his statement would not be true

    Here we go again: Dogs have 4 legs, so an animal with 4 legs is a dog is the @hyufd level of logic.

    So yes there are rich people on benefits. This particular benefit. WFA in fact. And it could be removed very easily in the same way as it is removed for all the other benefits that stop people with capital claiming them.

    I though @hyufd had got over this type of argument. I don't like @leon's use of the IQ argument, but sometimes it does have merit.
    For the last 48 hours you have been boasting about how you minimise your tax liability by hoarding vast amounts of capital and as a result keep yourself below the taxable income threshold to remove your WFA.

    You now have the audacity to expect taxpayers to pay a fortune to employ HMRC admins to trace said capital of legal tax dodgers like you just so you can have your WFA removed.

    While those on actual real benefits like UC and pension credit get it as they are really on low incomes with next to no capital at all to trace
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,745

    Scott_xP said:

    Norman Tebbit has died

    I remember meeting him on a college trip to Parliament in 1994. A lovely charming man who was very happy chatting to this group of teenagers from a long long way away from his constituency.
    Did you cycle to Westminster?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040

    TOPPING said:

    Have we factored the Cons' sulk into our predictions. Don't misunderestimate the degree to which many Cons voters (who could they be I wonder) are still smarting about being thrown out of power after nigh on 15 years, natural party of government, bloody lefties gaining the whip hand, etc.

    Many might just have exited from the stage, interest-wise, and won't likely reanimate until an actual GE draws near. We are one year in of a four or five year term. Frankly, it's all performative and who cares.

    In the meantime the Refs and the Jezzas will make hay.

    I think the "sulk factor" needs more serious analysis. It's not just lazy Tory voters that the Conservative party needs to worry about, it's lazy activists. How ready are they for a ground war? Their Polling Day Organisation used to be second to none, but it seems to have evaporated in the last five years. Also, the number of their councillors defecting ought to worry them - since the local elections in May they have lost over 70 councillors, in all directions - to ReformUK, to Independents, to the Lib Dems, even to Labour. They are not match fit at a constituency level.
    Agree. The politically active and ambitious might head over to Reform because then they can still be active and ambitious and might (might) end up in power. But the foot soldiers, where motivation is always the key and a challenge, might think sod it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,053
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


    *For the avoidance of doubt.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
    A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.

    Once the beach side bars, hotels and casinos start rolling it’ll be fine. Perhaps fetching striped uniforms for the waiters and maids (which will be the maximum status that Gazans can expect)?
    ...In a letter responding to their claims, the office of Israel’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, said that displacing Palestinians or concentrating the population in one part of Gaza were not among the objectives of the operation.

    That statement was directly contradicted by Katz, said Prof Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    The defence minister laid out clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Goldberg said, and the creation of “a concentration camp or a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them”.

    “It is neither humanitarian nor a city,” he said of Katz’s planned holding area for Palestinians.

    “A city is a place where you have possibilities of work, of earning money, of making connections and freedom of movement.

    “There are hospitals, schools, universities and offices. This is not what they have in mind. It will not be a livable place, just as the ‘safe areas’ are unliveable now.”..
    I think we’re only days from Netanyahu’s government talking about “special treatment”, “evacuation”, and “resettlement” for the inhabitants of Gaza.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,719
    Scott_xP said:

    Norman Tebbit has died

    Sad to hear, a tough character who no doubt would have been delighted at the chance of a Farage premiership. In his heart he was always more UKIP and Reform than Tory
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,686
    edited 7:41AM
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    A course of justice is, as you know, a defined term.

    There are a number of possibilities here:

    1. Some of the criminal trials where the Fujitsu witness and some of the low level PO lawyers etc could be done.
    2. The 2019 civil litigation: the PO's GC (now in Australia) and other PO witnesses could be done here. 2 were reported to the authorities at the time by Mr Justice Fraser.
    3. The criminal appeals to the Court of Appeal: did senior PO staff withhold relevant material? It appears so but whether this is perverting the course of justice is another matter.
    4. The evidence given by Vennells and others to the Parliamentary Select Committee: only Parliament - not the courts - can take action over that. Vennells was careful to stay away publicly from items 1 (most of the trials happened before her time, to be fair) and item 2.

    It is worth remembering what happened in Hillsborough where a solicitor and 2 police officers who rewrote witness statements could not be tried because they did it for the ten Taylor Inquiry and it was not, as a matter of law, a course of justice. It is not the lying which will be difficult to prove but whether it can be sufficiently tied in to specific court proceedings. I have explored this in more detail in my book.

    The other problem is that it will be relatively easier to get low level people involved but harder the higher up you go because they were careful to adopt a "this is what I want done" approach while leaving as little trace of it as possible.

    Finally - for now - if you want to blame one Minister above all, blame Blair. He it was who insisted on going ahead with Fujitsu despite al the warnings. He it was who insisted on the absurd "at arm's length" approach to the PO which meant that the civil service and Ministers had no real control over an entity they controlled and funded and the PO was left free to do whatever it wanted with no effective accountability thus turning into the arrogant incompetent tosspot we have come to know and loathe.

    Then the Cameron government and Cable who were so focused on privatising Royal Mail that they and their minions suppressed all the evidence that was then coming out what had been happening in the previous decade.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,147
    Scott_xP said:

    Norman Tebbit has died

    RIP. He was a good politician, even if I did not always agree with him. I wonder if he will best be remembered for the effect the Brighton Bombing had on him and, more significantly, his wife.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,719
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

    If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour

    Morning! What can your party do to remedy this situation? From the natural party of government to the prospect of being 4th within a single election cycle.

    Permit me two observations:
    1) The damage done to the party post Covid is cataclysmic and so many of you appear to be in utter denial. Yes this Labour government is getting worse by the day, but few people think "so lets go back to the Tories". They think you were even worse than this lot.
    2) The political zeitgeist has shifted considerably. Badenoch suffers from (1) very badly - to haughty to accept that she and her colleagues did a bad job - and is banging out about woke and bathrooms which aren't the issues people care about any more.

    What is the way back for you? It isn't "Labour collapsing and people making us the government again. They won't - not without a serious change of mindset firstly from your party and then from the electorate.
    It's not so much post-Covid. They could have survived that, embarrassing as Partygate and Cumstain and the procurement fiascos all were.

    It's the Truss debacle that killed them.
    Which only occurred as Boris was removed, if he hadn’t been Farage would never have returned
  • eekeek Posts: 30,596
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    Being in the game, I'm sure you will agree, however, that the prospect of a trial in three years' time is significant punishment for those involved and likely to be defendants. Everyone always wants things tied up - one way or the other - as quickly as possible and, innocent or guilty, these peoples' lives will be ruined for the years leading up to the trial. And no bad thing, either.
    They need to be charged first and the trails are going to be complex.

    When I suggested the 2 week /month court of appeal summer session to clear the cases I had a secondary thought. They could have had the post office lawyers there and as the post office worker was declared innocent the lawyer who used the horizon evidence (post the date issues had been known) could have been given a few extra months for contempt due to providing knowingly false evidence to the courts).

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,053
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    The longer that's delayed, the less likely any successful prosecution.
    2028, and counting...
    I would be amazed if anyone was prosecuted.

    At least Pauline Vennells won’t become Bishop of London.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,058
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Norman Tebbit has died

    Sad to hear, a tough character who no doubt would have been delighted at the chance of a Farage premiership. In his heart he was always more UKIP and Reform than Tory
    Aside from 'a tough character' I don't agree with that at all.
    Agreed.
    Within the constricting bounds of his adopted dogmas, he was quite a rational character. I'm not convinced Farage's smoke and mirrors would have held that much appeal to him.
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,536
    Lib Dem’s

    Going bankrupt here !!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqxgpdp7do

    Farage is absolutely right to call for this to be reformed. The govts plan is woefully inadequate and this is yet another shit sandwich bequeathed by the useless prior Tory regime.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,745
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Back in the day (just after the ITV drama) on PB after much debate and investigation we identified our two main culprits, so why can't the authorities act? Their names? Davey and Starmer.
    Davey doesn't come out of it well, or any other minister with direct responsibility. That being said, it appears to have been at least partly a fault of the civil service helping with the cover up, possibly with good intentions based on low information, limited curiosity and a certain lack of intellect.

    The solicitors and barristers who did the prosecuting, including falsifying paperwork, come out extremely badly.

    So do those who wrote the reports on the system for the Post Office and Fujitsu.

    So do the senior managers at those firms.

    So, frankly, do the courts. Their behaviour may have been due to frauds happening elsewhere in the system but it still sucked.

    However, I wonder if anyone will actually face justice at all. It seems from the outside to be a classic example of process injustice where blame always gets transferred to somebody else so pinning it on one person is very hard. Examples might be made of say, Parsons and Dilley after they were caught lying to the inquiry, but I won't hold my breath for any senior managers to serve prison time.
    It wouldn't surprise me if Vennells and that awful woman who went to the Welsh FA are sacrificial lambs.

    That said, I think we'd all be happy to bang up Starmer for his role whilst DPP as the scapegoat.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040
    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    Being in the game, I'm sure you will agree, however, that the prospect of a trial in three years' time is significant punishment for those involved and likely to be defendants. Everyone always wants things tied up - one way or the other - as quickly as possible and, innocent or guilty, these peoples' lives will be ruined for the years leading up to the trial. And no bad thing, either.
    They need to be charged first and the trails are going to be complex.

    When I suggested the 2 week /month court of appeal summer session to clear the cases I had a secondary thought. They could have had the post office lawyers there and as the post office worker was declared innocent the lawyer who used the horizon evidence (post the date issues had been known) could have been given a few extra months for contempt due to providing knowingly false evidence to the courts).

    Almost better that they haven't been charged. Those involved will be cr*pping themselves. If there are ten people who are involved and nine charges are announced that tenth person will get off scot free (why do we say that btw). This way, all ten are worried until the charges are announced.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,866

    My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

    With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

    In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

    I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

    Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

    I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

    I have no idea how large the specific group of voters is who can effortlessly cross over from Corbyn to Reform and back again. And I would never impugn mothers in law as life is short and we must spread sweetness and light, so I should be cautious about what follows.

    However the anecdote suggests the existence of a particular group with a common characteristic, which is nothing to do with party labels or old fashioned notions of left and right.

    This is the group which to an extreme degree believes that solutions to things are simple and obvious, only those in charge have perversely missed the point, and, crucially, possess no concept of the relationship between getting stuff done and the problems of financing it.

    Their intellectual gurus are the promoters of MMT, a concept which unites in a vague way the hard left, Reform voters and Trussonomics.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,686
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    I am spending the day in the garden sorting stuff for the shed which I have ordered. It is also a beautiful day.

    The second report will not hold people criminally responsible because a public inquiry cannot legally do that. It is one of their failings but it will apportion blame.

    In the meanwhile here is my Post Office Bingo Card for you to tick off:

    - The human impact was awful.
    - It was made worse by the conduct of the Post Office and others, including its lawyers and governments over many years.
    - It is still continuing.
    - Compensation is due, is urgent, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation or the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
    - Tribute will be paid to the SPMs.
    - The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and pretend that it has no power to do anything about compensation even though the Treasury's dead hands are all over it.
    - The Post Office will issue some PR guff about how sorry it is and how much it is doing. Someone will use the appalling phrase "at pace".
    - Most journalists will forget to ask why it is that Rodric Williams one of the shiftiest of the PO lawyers who gave evidence and who was heavily involved during the entire period when the problems were known about and covered up is now in charge of compensation at the Post Office.
    - The phrase "conflict of interest" will not be mentioned because no-one - other than me - seems to understand or recognise one, even when it is staring you in the face.
    - The government continues to think overturning convictions & giving out a few baubles is enough.
    - This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. It is Potemkin justice.

    Too cynical? Or just realistic? Let's see, shall we.
    I am hoping for a slightly less Potemkin result than Aberfan; we'll see.
    Since both the legal profession and government are deeply implicated in this case, it's almost impossible to hold an enquiry without conflicts of interest. It would be good to have that explicitly recognised, even if no more than that; I'm not holding my breath either.

    Enjoy your day in the garden.

    As a puzzle for your next visit, do you have any ideas how we might improve social care ?
    No, no - you have it wrong on conflicts of interest. Rodric Williams was a key lawyer involved at the time leading up to the 2019 trial and beyond.

    Any properly run organisation should realise that, even if his conduct at the time was beyond reproach, he should not now be in charge of compensation. He is conflicted regardless of his personal conduct. He is conflicted because of his role.

    The PO as a whole is conflicted and should not, IMO, be in charge of it. But if they are none of the lawyers previously involved in this matter should be anywhere near the compensation schemes.

    I am not so sick that I could not give proper training - to the entire establishment it seems - on what conflicts of interest are, why they are a bad thing, how to recognise and avoid/mitigate them. Even Lord Nolan got this wrong. Hopeless.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,147
    I was just reading Tebbitt's wiki page, and came across the case of the "Ferrybridge Six": six electricians who were sacked from their jobs for not joining a closed shop in 1975. They were in a union; just the 'wrong' union, and the 'right' union refused to allow them to join. They lost unemployment benefits.

    We've come a long way.

    Thankfully.

    (Michael Foot showed his nasty side in that case.)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,074
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Norman Tebbit has died

    Sad to hear, a tough character who no doubt would have been delighted at the chance of a Farage premiership. In his heart he was always more UKIP and Reform than Tory
    Aside from 'a tough character' I don't agree with that at all.
    Tebbit, like most Conservatives of that generation, was a realist. Very few Conservatives of the current generation are.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,041
    edited 7:52AM
    Deleted
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,745
    Taz said:

    Lib Dem’s

    Going bankrupt here !!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqxgpdp7do

    Farage is absolutely right to call for this to be reformed. The govts plan is woefully inadequate and this is yet another shit sandwich bequeathed by the useless prior Tory regime.

    SEND is Starmer's next bear trap. Individual provision is unaffordable, but as Nick Ferrari demonstrated yesterday taking away special needs provision from needy little children is the Welfare Bill on steroids all over again.

    The last Government were splendid at spending money they didn't have to scupper the next Government. Genius.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,115

    Good morning, everyone.

    They could, if they ever crawl out of their comfort zone. Middle-class, liberal city-dwelling and rocket sandwich-devouring supporters are all well and good, but if they want to get well into triple figures they need to be able to get at least centrists on side, if not the soft right.

    But enough about the Tory party.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,596
    Netanyahu has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/07/07/trump-netanyahu-live-latest-white-house-ceasefire/

    Which I guess confirms how desperate Trump is to get it that he is even getting the least suitable leaders in the world to nominate him for it. I would have thought this nomination by itself is enough for the committee to reject Trump for ever..
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,599
    Taz said:

    Lib Dem’s

    Going bankrupt here !!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqxgpdp7do

    Farage is absolutely right to call for this to be reformed. The govts plan is woefully inadequate and this is yet another shit sandwich bequeathed by the useless prior Tory regime.

    Farage? WTF? The entire story is the Lib Dems running to find a solution and you spin it that Farage is leading on the issue.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,745

    Deleted

    Labour in Wales?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,866
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    I am spending the day in the garden sorting stuff for the shed which I have ordered. It is also a beautiful day.

    The second report will not hold people criminally responsible because a public inquiry cannot legally do that. It is one of their failings but it will apportion blame.

    In the meanwhile here is my Post Office Bingo Card for you to tick off:

    - The human impact was awful.
    - It was made worse by the conduct of the Post Office and others, including its lawyers and governments over many years.
    - It is still continuing.
    - Compensation is due, is urgent, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation or the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
    - Tribute will be paid to the SPMs.
    - The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and pretend that it has no power to do anything about compensation even though the Treasury's dead hands are all over it.
    - The Post Office will issue some PR guff about how sorry it is and how much it is doing. Someone will use the appalling phrase "at pace".
    - Most journalists will forget to ask why it is that Rodric Williams one of the shiftiest of the PO lawyers who gave evidence and who was heavily involved during the entire period when the problems were known about and covered up is now in charge of compensation at the Post Office.
    - The phrase "conflict of interest" will not be mentioned because no-one - other than me - seems to understand or recognise one, even when it is staring you in the face.
    - The government continues to think overturning convictions & giving out a few baubles is enough.
    - This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. It is Potemkin justice.

    Too cynical? Or just realistic? Let's see, shall we.
    We had a new shed in our garden too just recently. Bingo.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,686
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    The longer that's delayed, the less likely any successful prosecution.
    2028, and counting...
    I would be amazed if anyone was prosecuted.

    At least Pauline Vennells won’t become Bishop of London.
    The way this country is going she'll probably end up as Archbishop of Canterbury. No-one wants that role it seems.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,321

    HYUFD said:

    It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

    If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour

    Morning! What can your party do to remedy this situation? From the natural party of government to the prospect of being 4th within a single election cycle.

    Permit me two observations:
    1) The damage done to the party post Covid is cataclysmic and so many of you appear to be in utter denial. Yes this Labour government is getting worse by the day, but few people think "so lets go back to the Tories". They think you were even worse than this lot.
    2) The political zeitgeist has shifted considerably. Badenoch suffers from (1) very badly - to haughty to accept that she and her colleagues did a bad job - and is banging out about woke and bathrooms which aren't the issues people care about any more.

    What is the way back for you? It isn't "Labour collapsing and people making us the government again. They won't - not without a serious change of mindset firstly
    from your party and then from the electorate.
    I’ve not been paying much attention, but when was the last time Badenoch talked about bathrooms? Are you sure it’s not just you?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,705
    eek said:

    Netanyahu has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/07/07/trump-netanyahu-live-latest-white-house-ceasefire/

    Which I guess confirms how desperate Trump is to get it that he is even getting the least suitable leaders in the world to nominate him for it. I would have thought this nomination by itself is enough for the committee to reject Trump for ever..

    If Trump wins the Nobel Peace prize it'll put dynamite under the whole tradition!!!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,866
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


    *For the avoidance of doubt.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
    A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.

    Once the beach side bars, hotels and casinos start rolling it’ll be fine. Perhaps fetching striped uniforms for the waiters and maids (which will be the maximum status that Gazans can expect)?
    ...In a letter responding to their claims, the office of Israel’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, said that displacing Palestinians or concentrating the population in one part of Gaza were not among the objectives of the operation.

    That statement was directly contradicted by Katz, said Prof Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    The defence minister laid out clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Goldberg said, and the creation of “a concentration camp or a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them”.

    “It is neither humanitarian nor a city,” he said of Katz’s planned holding area for Palestinians.

    “A city is a place where you have possibilities of work, of earning money, of making connections and freedom of movement.

    “There are hospitals, schools, universities and offices. This is not what they have in mind. It will not be a livable place, just as the ‘safe areas’ are unliveable now.”..
    I think we’re only days from Netanyahu’s government talking about “special treatment”, “evacuation”, and “resettlement” for the inhabitants of Gaza.
    'Remigration' seems to be the new term for this in Europe.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 389

    I was just reading Tebbitt's wiki page, and came across the case of the "Ferrybridge Six": six electricians who were sacked from their jobs for not joining a closed shop in 1975. They were in a union; just the 'wrong' union, and the 'right' union refused to allow them to join. They lost unemployment benefits.

    We've come a long way.

    Thankfully.

    (Michael Foot showed his nasty side in that case.)

    A couple of weeks ago I tried to explain the Closed Shop concept, and its practical consequences, to my daughter and son-in-law. I don't think they believed me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    The longer that's delayed, the less likely any successful prosecution.
    2028, and counting...
    I would be amazed if anyone was prosecuted.

    At least Pauline Vennells won’t become Bishop of London.
    The way this country is going she'll probably end up as Archbishop of Canterbury. No-one wants that role it seems.
    She could become Archbishop of Wales instead, perhaps?

    (Although if a woman is to be appointed I would expect it to be Mary Stallard. Depends how tainted by association she is with the Bangor scandal. Dorrien Davies is probably favourite.)
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,115
    My fingers are hovering over the keyboard ready for the pre-sale of Lewis Capaldi tickets, on sale at 9.00. Wish me luck/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,719
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

    Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

    It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

    Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

    The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.
    It's shocking that there have not been trials for attempting to pervert the course of justice already. Not remotely surprising, of course, but shocking.
    The longer that's delayed, the less likely any successful prosecution.
    2028, and counting...
    I would be amazed if anyone was prosecuted.

    At least Pauline Vennells won’t become Bishop of London.
    The way this country is going she'll probably end up as Archbishop of Canterbury. No-one wants that role it seems.
    She isn't even a bishop, there are plenty of good candidates like the Bishop of Chelmsford and Bishop of Salisbury for the role
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,134

    I was just reading Tebbitt's wiki page, and came across the case of the "Ferrybridge Six": six electricians who were sacked from their jobs for not joining a closed shop in 1975. They were in a union; just the 'wrong' union, and the 'right' union refused to allow them to join. They lost unemployment benefits.

    We've come a long way.

    Thankfully.

    (Michael Foot showed his nasty side in that case.)

    A couple of weeks ago I tried to explain the Closed Shop concept, and its practical consequences, to my daughter and son-in-law. I don't think they believed me.
    NASUWT's executive committee appear to want to bring it back in teaching, the twats.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,705

    I was just reading Tebbitt's wiki page, and came across the case of the "Ferrybridge Six": six electricians who were sacked from their jobs for not joining a closed shop in 1975. They were in a union; just the 'wrong' union, and the 'right' union refused to allow them to join. They lost unemployment benefits.

    We've come a long way.

    Thankfully.

    (Michael Foot showed his nasty side in that case.)

    There's nasty and there's nasty.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,455

    Taz said:

    Lib Dem’s

    Going bankrupt here !!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqxgpdp7do

    Farage is absolutely right to call for this to be reformed. The govts plan is woefully inadequate and this is yet another shit sandwich bequeathed by the useless prior Tory regime.

    SEND is Starmer's next bear trap. Individual provision is unaffordable, but as Nick Ferrari demonstrated yesterday taking away special needs provision from needy little children is the Welfare Bill on steroids all over again.

    The last Government were splendid at spending money they didn't have to scupper the next Government. Genius.
    And people said Rishi was rubbish at politics.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,850
    Morning all :)

    On topic, short answer, I don't know. Long answer, I really don't know.

    I've often said the fortunes of the LDs are entirely dependent on the fortunes of other parties and that now includes Reform so that makes three variables.

    Second problem is we have no idea when the election will be - mid 2028 to mid 2029 seems the most likely window but I could see Starmer going on to May or even June 2029 if he wants maximum time for his party's fortunes to turn and maximum time for Reform to implode under scrutiny.

    I'll leave this and try and find some winners at the Newmarket July Meeting .
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,236
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


    *For the avoidance of doubt.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
    A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.

    Once the beach side bars, hotels and casinos start rolling it’ll be fine. Perhaps fetching striped uniforms for the waiters and maids (which will be the maximum status that Gazans can expect)?
    ...In a letter responding to their claims, the office of Israel’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, said that displacing Palestinians or concentrating the population in one part of Gaza were not among the objectives of the operation.

    That statement was directly contradicted by Katz, said Prof Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    The defence minister laid out clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Goldberg said, and the creation of “a concentration camp or a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them”.

    “It is neither humanitarian nor a city,” he said of Katz’s planned holding area for Palestinians.

    “A city is a place where you have possibilities of work, of earning money, of making connections and freedom of movement.

    “There are hospitals, schools, universities and offices. This is not what they have in mind. It will not be a livable place, just as the ‘safe areas’ are unliveable now.”..
    I think we’re only days from Netanyahu’s government talking about “special treatment”, “evacuation”, and “resettlement” for the inhabitants of Gaza.
    To unspecified locations in the east.
    Perhaps they can have a conference in a beautiful villa by a lake to finalise the details.
Sign In or Register to comment.