Yeah guys, Gavin Newsom’s content is ridiculous. But it’s making you uncomfortable because he’s holding up a mirror to what you tolerate on behalf of partisanship. It jolts people out of their passive acceptance of how insane Trump sounds. https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1957650485575618799
Newsom gets to be a jerk, and claim the (relative) high ground of parody. That's a sweet spot for a politician.
He’s wrestling with a pig, there’s no way he can keep it up for more than a few weeks, and the policy he’s talking about is a blatant and unpopular exercise in Gerrymandering, to make California worse than it is already.
Meanwhile, as he’s playing Twitter games with Texas and the president, his own State is a total mess. Make America California Again really isn’t a popular message.
A week or 2 ago you were claiming that California was already gerrymandered to the max by Dems, despite the fact that redistricting is done by an independent commission in California.
Californians seem to like their independent redistricting, so Newsom's proposed map starts off at a disadvantage. If he can frame it as retaliation for Republican dirty tricks, and a referendum on Trump, I guess he can win the vote on the proposition - so it makes sense to get as much attention for this framing as possible, as early as possible.
'Independent' California - Dem 43 GOP 9 'Gerrymandered' Texas - GOP25 Dem 13
Judge an organisation by its actions not its name.
California has an independent commission in the same way that East Germany was a Democratic Republic.
It’s fine when the Democrats do it as they’re the good guys here.
As I've noted before, it's complicated.
Districts are FPTP, so you get all the unrepresentative effects of that*, even if you have an entirely independent, non partisan redistricting commission. When a state is strongly GOP or Democrat, then it's not going to be representative at all.
That on its own is not gerrymandering.
When a state decides its going to redistrict, with the stated intention of giving the governing party extra seats in Congress, outside of the normal schedule, than you can fairly label that gerrymandering.
Where to draw the line between those two extremes is, as you say, a charged political debate. But I'd note that Newsom's move in California is entirely contingent on the Texas gerrymander. If that doesn't happen, then neither will the CA proposal.
*As an aside, if Democrats were offered proportional representation across the nation they take it; the GOP almost certainly wouldn't
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
You seem very angry. Just a couple of tips; stop watching GBNews and cancel your Telegraph subscription.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
You seem very angry. Just a couple of tips; stop watching GBNews and cancel your Telegraph subscription.
Neither apply to me. My anger comes from a purer source (what sort of fool subscribes to a newspaper??)
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
Can I interest you in a free SunLife Parker pen?
Just for enquiring?
Absolutely no obligation, but you do need to enter all your details so you can be hassled day and night until you sign on the dotted line with your new Parker pen. Sign here please...
Well, Parky says its worth it so.........
A canny Yorkshireman who had absolutely no unaffordability issues over his own funeral.
Sorry to hear about your loss Flatlander. I hope you will give him a good send off and make it memorable.
About Charities - DYOR. The title is simply a tax wrapper. There’s a lot with high overheads and low impact. There are many more now who are doing outsourced work for HMG so you just be subsidising HMG again, indirectly.
Ha, yes, I am aware that many charities are less than transparent about what they actually do and am not a big fan of many.
In this case my thought is a trust which could do its own specific work. Mrs Flatlander is already a trustee on a land management charity (mostly restoring wetlands along a river course) and has lots of connections with the local wildlife trusts.
Whether it is what my father would have wanted is a different question. He didn't offer an opinion on much.
It was easier in my case because my father had laid out in black and white exactly what charities he wished to benefit and how much, in his will.
But the thought occurs that if the money is now going to be yours, you have no other use for it and do not wish to hand it to the Treasury, you could use it to do a cause that would in itself be good anyway even if you are not sure what your father’s own views would have been. That would not be a bad thing. Could be accessible paths, nature reserves, mobility scooter charities…
IIRC It takes 10% of the estate (not just the IHT-liable bit) to go to charity for IHT on the liable portion of the rest to be cut by 4%. I don't think - pace @MattW if I have not misread - that the 10% is in any way a cap, just a trigge rpoint. HMG website: "The estate can pay Inheritance Tax at a reduced rate of 36% on some assets if you leave 10% or more of the ‘net value’ to charity in your will. (The net value is the estate’s total value minus any debts.)" Which seems not mucvh of a concession if there is not much IHT anyway, ergo is it worth losing much sleep over? Though the newts etc. are a different matter!
Indeed, it's worth considering whether Flatlander could even be better to inherit and then give under Gift Aid (which adds 25% to the charity's take) or the one-off gift of shares or assets procedure - especially if in the higher income tax bracket or sustaining a capital gain, which could apply if the house increased in price between probate and sale and a deed of appropriation was used.
If making a donation to charity from the estate one might consider whether to do some of it as shares rather than as cash. This is a very good way of using up small holdings of shares (often alocattions from privatizations) that would be inconvenient and relatively expensive to sell from within the estate or transfer to a person. Some charities will accept the shares but others aren't set up for that. Rather Sharegift do it and then send the money to one of the charities on their list with a dosh of additional money too. I got them to add one of my preferred charities to their list! Result! https://www.sharegift.org/
Gift Aid only works for an income tax payer - and having retired recently I am not currently paying any.
The idea would be to "give away" everything above the tax threshold. It wouldn't be to just reduce the tax rate (which as you point out would need a very large legacy to make direct financial sense).
Anyway, the question was really a moral one. Should I pay HMRC or not?
But talking about Gift Aid reminds me that the government already encourages this kind of thing day in day out, so why worry?
I never really understand the aversion to paying HMRC. It is health, education, defence, law and order, pensions, social security protecting the vulnerable and less fortunate living around us. A kind of general purpose charity if you like.
And, despite everything we say about government, quite possibly more efficient in its spending than are the majority of charities.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
Can I interest you in a free SunLife Parker pen?
Just for enquiring?
Absolutely no obligation, but you do need to enter all your details so you can be hassled day and night until you sign on the dotted line with your new Parker pen. Sign here please...
Well, Parky says its worth it so.........
A canny Yorkshireman who had absolutely no unaffordability issues over his own funeral.
I used to be an IFA. Terrifying sweet old dears into buying regulated insurance products was one of the many repulsive aspects of the job
Latest favourability polling from YG, slightly improvements for Ed, Nigel and Kemi. Starmer flat as a pancake. Labour nearly underneath the evil Toreez in party favourability. Polanski barely known but not significantly preferred to Ramsey or Chowns.
Elie Chowns' ratings are basically indistinguishable from those for the made-up politician Andrew Farmer.
Latest favourability polling from YG, slightly improvements for Ed, Nigel and Kemi. Starmer flat as a pancake. Labour nearly underneath the evil Toreez in party favourability. Polanski barely known but not significantly preferred to Ramsey or Chowns.
Elie Chowns' ratings are basically indistinguishable from those for the made-up politician Andrew Farmer.
Davey comes out well.
The Greens are all invisible, though the party is fairly well regarded. Davey does indeed continue to poll fairly well.
Sorry to hear about your loss Flatlander. I hope you will give him a good send off and make it memorable.
About Charities - DYOR. The title is simply a tax wrapper. There’s a lot with high overheads and low impact. There are many more now who are doing outsourced work for HMG so you just be subsidising HMG again, indirectly.
Ha, yes, I am aware that many charities are less than transparent about what they actually do and am not a big fan of many.
In this case my thought is a trust which could do its own specific work. Mrs Flatlander is already a trustee on a land management charity (mostly restoring wetlands along a river course) and has lots of connections with the local wildlife trusts.
Whether it is what my father would have wanted is a different question. He didn't offer an opinion on much.
It was easier in my case because my father had laid out in black and white exactly what charities he wished to benefit and how much, in his will.
But the thought occurs that if the money is now going to be yours, you have no other use for it and do not wish to hand it to the Treasury, you could use it to do a cause that would in itself be good anyway even if you are not sure what your father’s own views would have been. That would not be a bad thing. Could be accessible paths, nature reserves, mobility scooter charities…
IIRC It takes 10% of the estate (not just the IHT-liable bit) to go to charity for IHT on the liable portion of the rest to be cut by 4%. I don't think - pace @MattW if I have not misread - that the 10% is in any way a cap, just a trigge rpoint. HMG website: "The estate can pay Inheritance Tax at a reduced rate of 36% on some assets if you leave 10% or more of the ‘net value’ to charity in your will. (The net value is the estate’s total value minus any debts.)" Which seems not mucvh of a concession if there is not much IHT anyway, ergo is it worth losing much sleep over? Though the newts etc. are a different matter!
Indeed, it's worth considering whether Flatlander could even be better to inherit and then give under Gift Aid (which adds 25% to the charity's take) or the one-off gift of shares or assets procedure - especially if in the higher income tax bracket or sustaining a capital gain, which could apply if the house increased in price between probate and sale and a deed of appropriation was used.
If making a donation to charity from the estate one might consider whether to do some of it as shares rather than as cash. This is a very good way of using up small holdings of shares (often alocattions from privatizations) that would be inconvenient and relatively expensive to sell from within the estate or transfer to a person. Some charities will accept the shares but others aren't set up for that. Rather Sharegift do it and then send the money to one of the charities on their list with a dosh of additional money too. I got them to add one of my preferred charities to their list! Result! https://www.sharegift.org/
Gift Aid only works for an income tax payer - and having retired recently I am not currently paying any.
The idea would be to "give away" everything above the tax threshold. It wouldn't be to just reduce the tax rate (which as you point out would need a very large legacy to make direct financial sense).
Anyway, the question was really a moral one. Should I pay HMRC or not?
But talking about Gift Aid reminds me that the government already encourages this kind of thing day in day out, so why worry?
Indeed. I was surprised when I realised the number of concessions on IT and CGT HMG give to the wealthy. Even setting up political think tanks. And let's not forget that gifts to political parties are also free of IHT (not sure if they count as charities for the 4% deduction, though!).
One thing I will not be doing is leaving any money to a political party - either my father's or mine!
The whole system needs reform. There are too many clauses for this that and the other - presumably added thanks to whoever was lobbying the government of the day.
If there were no exceptions I'd just have paid up and not worried about it, but to be honest IHT needs to go - to be replaced with something with more granularity such as a LVT. At least it wouldn't be additional hassle when you least need it.
+ It would be fun watching the Conservatives deal with Labour being the ones to do it. Subverts expectations.
(1% council (property value) tax would cover IHT, CGT and Stamp Duty. Would be the biggest budget out-of-hat moment ever)
It would also make revaluations (which are currently a political nightmare) far easier as you can look up the last sale price and apply it to any roughly identical houses.
I do find it ironic that because the house we are attached to is in a different street our house is in a lower tax band then theirs. Ours at the time even had an extension that theirs still doesn't have..
Yeah guys, Gavin Newsom’s content is ridiculous. But it’s making you uncomfortable because he’s holding up a mirror to what you tolerate on behalf of partisanship. It jolts people out of their passive acceptance of how insane Trump sounds. https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1957650485575618799
Newsom gets to be a jerk, and claim the (relative) high ground of parody. That's a sweet spot for a politician.
He’s wrestling with a pig, there’s no way he can keep it up for more than a few weeks, and the policy he’s talking about is a blatant and unpopular exercise in Gerrymandering, to make California worse than it is already.
Meanwhile, as he’s playing Twitter games with Texas and the president, his own State is a total mess. Make America California Again really isn’t a popular message.
A week or 2 ago you were claiming that California was already gerrymandered to the max by Dems, despite the fact that redistricting is done by an independent commission in California.
Californians seem to like their independent redistricting, so Newsom's proposed map starts off at a disadvantage. If he can frame it as retaliation for Republican dirty tricks, and a referendum on Trump, I guess he can win the vote on the proposition - so it makes sense to get as much attention for this framing as possible, as early as possible.
'Independent' California - Dem 43 GOP 9 'Gerrymandered' Texas - GOP25 Dem 13
Judge an organisation by its actions not its name.
California has an independent commission in the same way that East Germany was a Democratic Republic.
I suppose you think Scotland was gerrymandered when the SNP won 56 seats out of 57 in the 2015 general election?
In a way it was because it was 'fixed' for FPTP. The SNP have never managed that proportion of directly elected seats in Scottish elections.
Sure, I'm all in favour of more proportional systems, but you can't just point at numbers of seats won as evidence of gerrymandering.
Here's an article on JD Vance's claim that California is more gerrymandered that Texas:
If fits with the general pattern that "things that Vance says are likely to be false"
California's independent redistricting commission is generally held up as an example of best practice; it's not part of their job to try and make artificial districts to try and counteract the somewhat inefficient Republican vote in California. Comparing them to the former East Germany is just ignorant.
Newsom’s proposed gerrymander is more blatantly unfair than Texas’.
In an even year, you’d expect the Democrats to win about 58% to 37% for the Republicans in California, and about 43% to 54% in Texas.
Newsom’s gerrymander splits the seats in the proportions 92:8, whereas Texas’ will split them 1:2.
You might be right, but can you show your workings for those figures
First, mea culpa. Upon checking, I see I got the Texas numbers wrong - but I think my point still stands.
To get to parity, nationwide, I came up with a swing of 1% from Republican to Democrat.
That gives results of 24:14 in Texas, to the Republicans, and 8:44 in California, on current boundaries.
The Texas gerrymander shifts that to 29:9 and the California gerrymander to 3:49.
That leaves the Texas Democrats on 24% of seats, compared to 43% of votes, and the California Republicans on 6% of seats, compared to 37% of votes.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
The daytime advert that used to annoy me beyond measure a few years ago involved a woman doing a sung lament to the tune of 'You're the one that a want' from Grease: 'I've got kiiiiiids ... they're multiplying ...' Well, you must have some say in your reproductive behaviour my dear. Don't effing come on here and harangue us over the number of kids you're knocking out! (I've no recollection on what the advert was attempting to sell.)
Yeah guys, Gavin Newsom’s content is ridiculous. But it’s making you uncomfortable because he’s holding up a mirror to what you tolerate on behalf of partisanship. It jolts people out of their passive acceptance of how insane Trump sounds. https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1957650485575618799
Newsom gets to be a jerk, and claim the (relative) high ground of parody. That's a sweet spot for a politician.
He’s wrestling with a pig, there’s no way he can keep it up for more than a few weeks, and the policy he’s talking about is a blatant and unpopular exercise in Gerrymandering, to make California worse than it is already.
Meanwhile, as he’s playing Twitter games with Texas and the president, his own State is a total mess. Make America California Again really isn’t a popular message.
A week or 2 ago you were claiming that California was already gerrymandered to the max by Dems, despite the fact that redistricting is done by an independent commission in California.
Californians seem to like their independent redistricting, so Newsom's proposed map starts off at a disadvantage. If he can frame it as retaliation for Republican dirty tricks, and a referendum on Trump, I guess he can win the vote on the proposition - so it makes sense to get as much attention for this framing as possible, as early as possible.
'Independent' California - Dem 43 GOP 9 'Gerrymandered' Texas - GOP25 Dem 13
Judge an organisation by its actions not its name.
California has an independent commission in the same way that East Germany was a Democratic Republic.
It’s fine when the Democrats do it as they’re the good guys here.
As I've noted before, it's complicated.
Districts are FPTP, so you get all the unrepresentative effects of that*, even if you have an entirely independent, non partisan redistricting commission. When a state is strongly GOP or Democrat, then it's not going to be representative at all.
That on its own is not gerrymandering.
When a state decides its going to redistrict, with the stated intention of giving the governing party extra seats in Congress, outside of the normal schedule, than you can fairly label that gerrymandering.
Where to draw the line between those two extremes is, as you say, a charged political debate. But I'd note that Newsom's move in California is entirely contingent on the Texas gerrymander. If that doesn't happen, then neither will the CA proposal.
*As an aside, if Democrats were offered proportional representation across the nation they take it; the GOP almost certainly wouldn't
Agreed. The preponderance of 1 and 2 seat states in red areas does skew things towards the reps, and subsequently the electoral college.
With no pressure to get a ceasefire Putin will just keep delaying .
Trump’s latest comments will only fool those who want to keep the charade going . European leaders are either in denial or plain stupid to think any US security guarantees will amount to anything .
The so called significant progress yesterday lasts as long as they are in the room with Trump .
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
The daytime advert that used to annoy me beyond measure a few years ago involved a woman doing a sung lament to the tune of 'You're the one that a want' from Grease: 'I've got kiiiiiids ... they're multiplying ...' Well, you must have some say in your reproductive behaviour my dear. Don't effing come on here an harangue us over the number of kids you're knocking out! (I've no recollection on what the advert was attempting to sell.)
According to Google's AI, "...while VPNs are not explicitly outlawed in China, their use is heavily restricted and closely monitored. The Chinese government allows only pre-approved VPN services, which are essentially monitored by the government. Individuals using VPNs not sanctioned by the government may face fines or other penalties..."
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
The daytime advert that used to annoy me beyond measure a few years ago involved a woman doing a sung lament to the tune of 'You're the one that a want' from Grease: 'I've got kiiiiiids ... they're multiplying ...' Well, you must have some say in your reproductive behaviour my dear. Don't effing come on here an harangue us over the number of kids you're knocking out! (I've no recollection on what the advert was attempting to sell.)
The hideous world the Verisure people lived in was a cracker.
Can anyone explain why if inflation is say 5% the value of everyone's bank accounts cannot also rise by 5% in order to compensate people for the loss of value of their savings?
Inflation exists because there is too much money chasing too little stuff, so the money that exists has to lose value.
If you uprated savings by the inflation rate you would create an inflationary spiral.
With no pressure to get a ceasefire Putin will just keep delaying .
Trump’s latest comments will only fool those who want to keep the charade going . European leaders are either in denial or plain stupid to think any US security guarantees will amount to anything .
The so called significant progress yesterday lasts as long as they are in the room with Trump .
Why was Jenrick boasting about opening new hotels every month? Because people did not want potentially illegal immigrants wandering the streets or cluttering the doorways of their shops, I suppose. So he found the solution to one problem, more secure accommodation, by creating another.
The absolute failure, however, for which he bore at least some responsibility (no doubt the Treasury and resources did too) was the grinding to a halt of our immigration assessment system, whether in original determinations, dealing with appeals, actually implementing the decisions made and getting people back on planes where they came from. The only success I can think of from the last government in this area was the deal with Albania. It should have been a model, not unique.
The current government has made modest progress in dealing with appeals and deportations but it is a pale shadow of what is needed. In my view the only realistic approach is an amnesty for most of those who have not been removed in 10 years or more and try to focus resources on the new arrivals/overstayers etc.
Isn't the bigger problem that many-to-most asylum applicants turn out to have a perfectly valid case under the established rules and the last government was terrified of acknowledging that? Hence keeping people in limbo, until they could be magicked away to Africa.
The rules are a load of bollox from from 70+ years ago , be as well saying we should bring back deportation. They are economic immigrants , illegally entering Britain and abusing the lax rules. You shoudl not just be able to travel through a shedload of safe countries to the one of your choice and say you want to live here free on state subsidies. Anyone who thinks that is sensible is not right in the head. Bigger problem is the state largesse they get from UK and hence the stampede to get here.
The evidence suggests that most asylum seekers coming here have very little knowledge of what benefits are or are not available. It does not seem to be the case that people come here because of our generous "state largesse". Indeed, they will have travelled through other countries with similar offerings from the state.
The reasons the UK are an attractive destination for some (and the UK does not get a lot of asylum seekers compared to many other countries) are (1) we speak English, (2) people wanting to join family/existing communities, and (3) asylum seekers going where the people smugglers send them rather than making much of an active choice. These are not easily changed.
A good way of reducing the number of people on state subsidies is to process claims more quickly. Make a determination and then, based on that, either deport or give asylum and the person can start contributing to society. Fortunately, we are seeing progress here. Deportations are up. The number staying in hotels is down.
The idea that you should not be able to travel through various safe countries before claiming asylum is very popular here in the UK, where we're at the end of a chain of safe countries. It's less popular in the countries on the frontline, like Greece and Italy, who would get even more claims. We should be clear that the number of refugees we get is small. The countries taking most refugees from Syria are Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. From Afghanistan, it's Iran and Pakistan. Tunisia has by far the most refugees from Libya. From Ukraine, it's Poland, Romania etc. We're lucky we've not faced a major refugee crisis in a bordering country.
We have in the past. The UK took in around a quarter of a million Belgians during WWI. We took around 65,000 Jewish refugees from the Nazis. When people talk about travelling through safe countries, I think of the many Jewish refugees from Germany who did stop in the first available safe country, like the Netherlands or France, only to then see those countries invaded. Those refugees, who had stopped in the first available safe country, went on to be killed in the Holocaust.
Government has hit a new low matching Rishi before he lost 251 seats level Forensic
Starting to feel a bit “un-come-back-able”, at least for SKS. You can win some people back over, but to get enough people back from an approval like that will be exceptionally challenging.
We’ve not even had Reeves’ Misery Budget 2: Electric Boogaloo, yet.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
The daytime advert that used to annoy me beyond measure a few years ago involved a woman doing a sung lament to the tune of 'You're the one that a want' from Grease: 'I've got kiiiiiids ... they're multiplying ...' Well, you must have some say in your reproductive behaviour my dear. Don't effing come on here and harangue us over the number of kids you're knocking out! (I've no recollection on what the advert was attempting to sell.)
I just want to go and live on the Tombola Bingo farm with the other broke gambling addicts
Government has hit a new low matching Rishi before he lost 251 seats level Forensic
Starting to feel a bit “un-come-back-able”, at least for SKS. You can win some people back over, but to get enough people back from an approval like that will be exceptionally challenging.
We’ve not even had Reeves’ Misery Budget 2: Electric Boogaloo, yet.
Yeah. They arent a million miles above the Oct 22 Truss collapse or the end of Teresa/Brexit implosion now. An actual immediate term economic crisis would see them beat even that I think. I cannot see a Lab majoriry after the next vote. Almost entirely reliant now on RefCon splitting fairly evenly to have a shot at minority govt or coalition. Stranger things though etc
According to Google's AI, "...while VPNs are not explicitly outlawed in China, their use is heavily restricted and closely monitored. The Chinese government allows only pre-approved VPN services, which are essentially monitored by the government. Individuals using VPNs not sanctioned by the government may face fines or other penalties..."
Saw this helpful visual and I for one cannot wait for the UK to join this rarified group of nations.
Yeah guys, Gavin Newsom’s content is ridiculous. But it’s making you uncomfortable because he’s holding up a mirror to what you tolerate on behalf of partisanship. It jolts people out of their passive acceptance of how insane Trump sounds. https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1957650485575618799
Newsom gets to be a jerk, and claim the (relative) high ground of parody. That's a sweet spot for a politician.
He’s wrestling with a pig, there’s no way he can keep it up for more than a few weeks, and the policy he’s talking about is a blatant and unpopular exercise in Gerrymandering, to make California worse than it is already.
Meanwhile, as he’s playing Twitter games with Texas and the president, his own State is a total mess. Make America California Again really isn’t a popular message.
A week or 2 ago you were claiming that California was already gerrymandered to the max by Dems, despite the fact that redistricting is done by an independent commission in California.
Californians seem to like their independent redistricting, so Newsom's proposed map starts off at a disadvantage. If he can frame it as retaliation for Republican dirty tricks, and a referendum on Trump, I guess he can win the vote on the proposition - so it makes sense to get as much attention for this framing as possible, as early as possible.
'Independent' California - Dem 43 GOP 9 'Gerrymandered' Texas - GOP25 Dem 13
Judge an organisation by its actions not its name.
California has an independent commission in the same way that East Germany was a Democratic Republic.
I suppose you think Scotland was gerrymandered when the SNP won 56 seats out of 57 in the 2015 general election?
In a way it was because it was 'fixed' for FPTP. The SNP have never managed that proportion of directly elected seats in Scottish elections.
Sure, I'm all in favour of more proportional systems, but you can't just point at numbers of seats won as evidence of gerrymandering.
Here's an article on JD Vance's claim that California is more gerrymandered that Texas:
If fits with the general pattern that "things that Vance says are likely to be false"
California's independent redistricting commission is generally held up as an example of best practice; it's not part of their job to try and make artificial districts to try and counteract the somewhat inefficient Republican vote in California. Comparing them to the former East Germany is just ignorant.
Newsom’s proposed gerrymander is more blatantly unfair than Texas’.
In an even year, you’d expect the Democrats to win about 58% to 37% for the Republicans in California, and about 43% to 54% in Texas.
Newsom’s gerrymander splits the seats in the proportions 92:8, whereas Texas’ will split them 1:2.
You might be right, but can you show your workings for those figures
First, mea culpa. Upon checking, I see I got the Texas numbers wrong - but I think my point still stands.
To get to parity, nationwide, I came up with a swing of 1% from Republican to Democrat.
That gives results of 24:14 in Texas, to the Republicans, and 8:44 in California, on current boundaries.
The Texas gerrymander shifts that to 29:9 and the California gerrymander to 3:49.
That leaves the Texas Democrats on 24% of seats, compared to 43% of votes, and the California Republicans on 6% of seats, compared to 37% of votes.
But you know with FPTP share of seats and share of votes are only tenuously related. It's not a measure of gerrymandering at all. Otherwise Scotland's general election results 2015 would mean Scottish constituencies were very heavily gerrymandered.
It seems like both gerrymanders gain 5 seats for their parties?
And what happens if you instead assume a 1% swing from Democrat to Republican?
California's results are less fair under FPTP because the Republican vote in California is less efficient than the Democrat vote in Texas. But some other states are even less fair (sometimes because of gerrymandering, often not).
Nationally I don't know whose vote is going to be more efficient for the House - the Republican vote used to be more efficient (in 2012 Republicans won 234 vs 201 seats but lost the national vote 47.7% to 48.8%, though this was partly due to Republican gerrymandering), but that seems to be changing in recent elections.
Off topic: Just had a spam sales call. Flogging some energy stuff or whatever. Hung up halfway through the spiel - but I'm not sure it was a real person - just something about the delivery. I reckon firms are using AI bots to do this now.
They usually start off with some rubbish about responding to my (non-existent) query. Interrupting the spiel with something irrelevant usually triggers a 'sorry to trouble you' line.
And yes, I agree; most of these are AI bots.
Always Indian
Very rarely these days. Many years ago Mrs C & I were in India watching England Cricket and we watched local TV for a bit of a change in the early evenings. There was a series about a lad who trained to do such calls; it was almost as though it was a desirable career path.
There was a terrifying documentary on R4 last Sunday about Scam Centres which are warehouses of slaves doing sales calls in rebel held areas of Myanmar. 10s of k of people.
Why was Jenrick boasting about opening new hotels every month? Because people did not want potentially illegal immigrants wandering the streets or cluttering the doorways of their shops, I suppose. So he found the solution to one problem, more secure accommodation, by creating another.
The absolute failure, however, for which he bore at least some responsibility (no doubt the Treasury and resources did too) was the grinding to a halt of our immigration assessment system, whether in original determinations, dealing with appeals, actually implementing the decisions made and getting people back on planes where they came from. The only success I can think of from the last government in this area was the deal with Albania. It should have been a model, not unique.
The current government has made modest progress in dealing with appeals and deportations but it is a pale shadow of what is needed. In my view the only realistic approach is an amnesty for most of those who have not been removed in 10 years or more and try to focus resources on the new arrivals/overstayers etc.
Isn't the bigger problem that many-to-most asylum applicants turn out to have a perfectly valid case under the established rules and the last government was terrified of acknowledging that? Hence keeping people in limbo, until they could be magicked away to Africa.
The rules are a load of bollox from from 70+ years ago , be as well saying we should bring back deportation. They are economic immigrants , illegally entering Britain and abusing the lax rules. You shoudl not just be able to travel through a shedload of safe countries to the one of your choice and say you want to live here free on state subsidies. Anyone who thinks that is sensible is not right in the head. Bigger problem is the state largesse they get from UK and hence the stampede to get here.
They are not economic immigrants. They are overwhelmingly young men of fighting age who are fleeing either conscription or (worse) its gangster equivalent.
So, if they were told they could stay once they had served three years in the British Army, or be sent home immediately, how many would still come?
So have I got this about right, the US deal is Ukraine give up land you currently control to Russia, buy $100bn of weapons from the US, give drone tech to US, UK / EU finance $50bn of the deal and also provide the peacekeeping force?
The mafia were more generous with their sit down peace deals.
Some brilliant news to cheer everyone up - some of Scotland's most stunning landscapes (heart of the Cairngorms at Luibeg and Ryvoan, Glencoe, Torridon etc) have been saved from bespoilment by 25m phone masts. We don't put enough value on these areas and forget that people come here to enjoy them, not scroll through TikTok.
(The issue was it was measured by landmass coverage rather than residents, so we were spending millions to install generators and masts in the middle of nowhere)
"Glenfinnan is full of impossible equations, and here’s another – how do you deal with so many tourists when most of them come at the same time of day?
I arrived in the village in time for the madness of the 11am viaduct crossing of The Jacobite steam train.
I began making my way up to the hillside viewpoint just after 10 to avoid being caught up in a hoard of stragglers that start running down the A830 trunk road when they realise they might miss the key moment.
What I saw as I approached was a sight to behold. There must have been around 1000 people up there, waiting to watch the moment they all remember fondly from the Harry Potter films, when the “Hogwarts Express” crosses the 21-arched viaduct at the foot of Loch Shiel."
It's definitely getting worse! despite the new car parks, signage and parking attendants put in, we couldn't find any space there a few weeks back, though with school holidays, and it being a Saturday in July we were asking for trouble. Not a Potter buff myself, was only planning on going to the visitor centre.
Anyone thinking of going to to see the Jacobite train, try a weekday in October, the train runs til the weekend the clocks change. Not really any easy answer to the extreme tourism question, they'll be pretty limited for extension to parking space in Glenfinnan now.
Re the phone masts - coverage in remote parts of the west coast is definitely much better than it was even 5 years ago, hopefully satellites can help nail the worst blackspots. Seems to be a lot of hillwalkers run into trouble where coverage is worst
Whenever we pass through Glenfinnan it is always mobbed, with people parking practically on top of each other. It must be hell for the residents. I always wonder why the tourists don’t park in Fort William, take the Mallaig train and cross the viaduct themselves. I haven’t been up the Glenfinnan monument since the Hairy Snotter films were first shown.
Yeah guys, Gavin Newsom’s content is ridiculous. But it’s making you uncomfortable because he’s holding up a mirror to what you tolerate on behalf of partisanship. It jolts people out of their passive acceptance of how insane Trump sounds. https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1957650485575618799
Newsom gets to be a jerk, and claim the (relative) high ground of parody. That's a sweet spot for a politician.
He’s wrestling with a pig, there’s no way he can keep it up for more than a few weeks, and the policy he’s talking about is a blatant and unpopular exercise in Gerrymandering, to make California worse than it is already.
Meanwhile, as he’s playing Twitter games with Texas and the president, his own State is a total mess. Make America California Again really isn’t a popular message.
A week or 2 ago you were claiming that California was already gerrymandered to the max by Dems, despite the fact that redistricting is done by an independent commission in California.
Californians seem to like their independent redistricting, so Newsom's proposed map starts off at a disadvantage. If he can frame it as retaliation for Republican dirty tricks, and a referendum on Trump, I guess he can win the vote on the proposition - so it makes sense to get as much attention for this framing as possible, as early as possible.
'Independent' California - Dem 43 GOP 9 'Gerrymandered' Texas - GOP25 Dem 13
Judge an organisation by its actions not its name.
California has an independent commission in the same way that East Germany was a Democratic Republic.
It’s fine when the Democrats do it as they’re the good guys here.
As I've noted before, it's complicated.
Districts are FPTP, so you get all the unrepresentative effects of that*, even if you have an entirely independent, non partisan redistricting commission. When a state is strongly GOP or Democrat, then it's not going to be representative at all.
That on its own is not gerrymandering.
When a state decides its going to redistrict, with the stated intention of giving the governing party extra seats in Congress, outside of the normal schedule, than you can fairly label that gerrymandering.
Where to draw the line between those two extremes is, as you say, a charged political debate. But I'd note that Newsom's move in California is entirely contingent on the Texas gerrymander. If that doesn't happen, then neither will the CA proposal.
*As an aside, if Democrats were offered proportional representation across the nation they take it; the GOP almost certainly wouldn't
Agreed. The preponderance of 1 and 2 seat states in red areas does skew things towards the reps, and subsequently the electoral college.
A built-in Republican advantage might be solidifying in the electoral college - though who knows? It wasn't so long go the electoral college was biased towards the Democrats. The Senate looks like it will be more Republican than the country for a while, unless Democrats manage to get really big vote leads nationally (or Republicans choose voter-repellant candidates in states where Democrats have a chance...)
The House is different, it depends on voter efficiency, and to a certain extent on who manages to most successfully gerrymander. But at the last election the Republicans seem to have lost their previous advantage - the tipping point seat was Pennsylvania 7th, which Republicans won by a margin of 1%, whereas they won the national vote by a margin of 2.6%. It's a bit complicated because there were more seats where the Democrats had no candidate than seats where Republicans had no candidate. But probably if Democrats get more votes overall, they will also get more seats. Hence Trump's request to Texas to find a few extra seats.
So have I got this about right, the US deal is Ukraine give up land you currently control to Russia, buy $100bn of weapons from the US, give drone tech to US, UK / EU finance $50bn of the deal and also provide the peacekeeping force?
The mafia were more generous with their sit down peace deals.
Not sure Zelenskyy should commit to paying $100bn to the US for security garauntees until he's shopped around and seen if protection is being offered at a more affordable price by other players in the space such as the Cosa Nostra, the Crips or the Triads.
Trump blames Ukraine for getting invaded: "It's not a war that should've been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size ... they took probably a lot of money too."
This is what he truly believes. It's Ukraine's fault for refusing to immediately surrender. Think of it this way: He sees Russia as the man and Ukraine as the woman.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
One of my sisters-in-law-in-law* uses the word "lot" when referring to someone else's family. She also pronounces ask as "arks".
*Other languages probably have a better term for the wife of your wife's brother.
So have I got this about right, the US deal is Ukraine give up land you currently control to Russia, buy $100bn of weapons from the US, give drone tech to US, UK / EU finance $50bn of the deal and also provide the peacekeeping force?
The mafia were more generous with their sit down peace deals.
It raises the question of what Trump is threatening Ukraine and the Europeans that he will do if Ukraine doesn't accept the deal?
Some brilliant news to cheer everyone up - some of Scotland's most stunning landscapes (heart of the Cairngorms at Luibeg and Ryvoan, Glencoe, Torridon etc) have been saved from bespoilment by 25m phone masts. We don't put enough value on these areas and forget that people come here to enjoy them, not scroll through TikTok.
(The issue was it was measured by landmass coverage rather than residents, so we were spending millions to install generators and masts in the middle of nowhere)
"Glenfinnan is full of impossible equations, and here’s another – how do you deal with so many tourists when most of them come at the same time of day?
I arrived in the village in time for the madness of the 11am viaduct crossing of The Jacobite steam train.
I began making my way up to the hillside viewpoint just after 10 to avoid being caught up in a hoard of stragglers that start running down the A830 trunk road when they realise they might miss the key moment.
What I saw as I approached was a sight to behold. There must have been around 1000 people up there, waiting to watch the moment they all remember fondly from the Harry Potter films, when the “Hogwarts Express” crosses the 21-arched viaduct at the foot of Loch Shiel."
It's definitely getting worse! despite the new car parks, signage and parking attendants put in, we couldn't find any space there a few weeks back, though with school holidays, and it being a Saturday in July we were asking for trouble. Not a Potter buff myself, was only planning on going to the visitor centre.
Anyone thinking of going to to see the Jacobite train, try a weekday in October, the train runs til the weekend the clocks change. Not really any easy answer to the extreme tourism question, they'll be pretty limited for extension to parking space in Glenfinnan now.
Re the phone masts - coverage in remote parts of the west coast is definitely much better than it was even 5 years ago, hopefully satellites can help nail the worst blackspots. Seems to be a lot of hillwalkers run into trouble where coverage is worst
For the individual there is sometimes an answer to the extreme tourism question. Choose with care. Expect not to be able to do some things comfortably at certain times. I live near but not in the lake district. Over 90% of visitors will be found in about 5% of the space. Understand the honeypot theory of tourism and the trade, and do your own thing. Even in July and August this can be done. Family members are doing it today. One of my daughters was swimming in a tarn with one other person in sight a couple of days ago.
Prediction: Reform will win the next General election and Farage will be PM. Not because I want it but the left liberal kumbaya types continue to bury their heads in sand in complete denial of the absurdity that our asylum system has become. The more they refuse to listen to ordinary people with ordinary legitimate concerns, the more they try to stigmatise protest and generalise protestors as right wing racist xenophobes, the more they will do Reform's work for them as the only party prepared to listen...
Trump blames Ukraine for getting invaded: "It's not a war that should've been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size ... they took probably a lot of money too."
This is what he truly believes. It's Ukraine's fault for refusing to immediately surrender. Think of it this way: He sees Russia as the man and Ukraine as the woman.
Fundamentally Trump is a coward and he's scared of Putin.
Why was Jenrick boasting about opening new hotels every month? Because people did not want potentially illegal immigrants wandering the streets or cluttering the doorways of their shops, I suppose. So he found the solution to one problem, more secure accommodation, by creating another.
The absolute failure, however, for which he bore at least some responsibility (no doubt the Treasury and resources did too) was the grinding to a halt of our immigration assessment system, whether in original determinations, dealing with appeals, actually implementing the decisions made and getting people back on planes where they came from. The only success I can think of from the last government in this area was the deal with Albania. It should have been a model, not unique.
The current government has made modest progress in dealing with appeals and deportations but it is a pale shadow of what is needed. In my view the only realistic approach is an amnesty for most of those who have not been removed in 10 years or more and try to focus resources on the new arrivals/overstayers etc.
Isn't the bigger problem that many-to-most asylum applicants turn out to have a perfectly valid case under the established rules and the last government was terrified of acknowledging that? Hence keeping people in limbo, until they could be magicked away to Africa.
The rules are a load of bollox from from 70+ years ago , be as well saying we should bring back deportation. They are economic immigrants , illegally entering Britain and abusing the lax rules. You shoudl not just be able to travel through a shedload of safe countries to the one of your choice and say you want to live here free on state subsidies. Anyone who thinks that is sensible is not right in the head. Bigger problem is the state largesse they get from UK and hence the stampede to get here.
They are not economic immigrants. They are overwhelmingly young men of fighting age who are fleeing either conscription or (worse) its gangster equivalent.
2024 figures, top 5 source countries were Pakistan (10,542), Afghanistan (8,508), Iran (8,099), Bangladesh (7,225), and Syria (6,680). Pakistan and Bangladesh do not have conscription, I note. (Also in the top ten are, in no particular order, India, Iraq, Eritrea, Sudan and Vietnam. Note acceptance rates vary considerably, from 99% for those from Sudan to 2% for those from India.)
In terms of age and gender, I can't find a detailed breakdown, but for the year ending March 2025, we had:
Male (17 and below): 11% Female (17 and below): 8% Male (18+): 59% Female (18+): 21%
Young men of so-called "fighting age" must be a subset of 18+ men, so they must be less than 59%. Your claim that they "are overwhelmingly young men of fighting age" does not seem to stand up.
o/t but interesting piece on Thames Water as seen from the toilet, sorry kitchen sink:
"It felt like the next part of the bill lectured me on my water use. I’m using 10% more, apparently. When I began reading the third page, the penny dropped. My water use isn’t the story.
Hidden in a dazzling array of figures was the new rate per cubic metre. For freshwater, it’s up 29%. For wastewater, up 35% (I worked that out myself, it wasn’t spelled out). Fixed charges are also up 98% and 40%, respectively. My apparent 10% increase in use pales by comparison.
My monthly bill jumped from £65 to £107 – something that’s only mentioned on page four of my bill. That’s a 65% rise and it has very little, if anything, to do with increased use."
Some brilliant news to cheer everyone up - some of Scotland's most stunning landscapes (heart of the Cairngorms at Luibeg and Ryvoan, Glencoe, Torridon etc) have been saved from bespoilment by 25m phone masts. We don't put enough value on these areas and forget that people come here to enjoy them, not scroll through TikTok.
(The issue was it was measured by landmass coverage rather than residents, so we were spending millions to install generators and masts in the middle of nowhere)
"Glenfinnan is full of impossible equations, and here’s another – how do you deal with so many tourists when most of them come at the same time of day?
I arrived in the village in time for the madness of the 11am viaduct crossing of The Jacobite steam train.
I began making my way up to the hillside viewpoint just after 10 to avoid being caught up in a hoard of stragglers that start running down the A830 trunk road when they realise they might miss the key moment.
What I saw as I approached was a sight to behold. There must have been around 1000 people up there, waiting to watch the moment they all remember fondly from the Harry Potter films, when the “Hogwarts Express” crosses the 21-arched viaduct at the foot of Loch Shiel."
It's definitely getting worse! despite the new car parks, signage and parking attendants put in, we couldn't find any space there a few weeks back, though with school holidays, and it being a Saturday in July we were asking for trouble. Not a Potter buff myself, was only planning on going to the visitor centre.
Anyone thinking of going to to see the Jacobite train, try a weekday in October, the train runs til the weekend the clocks change. Not really any easy answer to the extreme tourism question, they'll be pretty limited for extension to parking space in Glenfinnan now.
Re the phone masts - coverage in remote parts of the west coast is definitely much better than it was even 5 years ago, hopefully satellites can help nail the worst blackspots. Seems to be a lot of hillwalkers run into trouble where coverage is worst
For the individual there is sometimes an answer to the extreme tourism question. Choose with care. Expect not to be able to do some things comfortably at certain times. I live near but not in the lake district. Over 90% of visitors will be found in about 5% of the space. Understand the honeypot theory of tourism and the trade, and do your own thing. Even in July and August this can be done. Family members are doing it today. One of my daughters was swimming in a tarn with one other person in sight a couple of days ago.
I felt like quite a grouch when the local council put up a sign to one of our favourite quiet swimming beaches a while ago. Why point it out to tourists when there's only room for four cars?
Trump blames Ukraine for getting invaded: "It's not a war that should've been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size ... they took probably a lot of money too."
This is what he truly believes. It's Ukraine's fault for refusing to immediately surrender. Think of it this way: He sees Russia as the man and Ukraine as the woman.
Fundamentally Trump is a coward and he's scared of Putin.
Why was Jenrick boasting about opening new hotels every month? Because people did not want potentially illegal immigrants wandering the streets or cluttering the doorways of their shops, I suppose. So he found the solution to one problem, more secure accommodation, by creating another.
The absolute failure, however, for which he bore at least some responsibility (no doubt the Treasury and resources did too) was the grinding to a halt of our immigration assessment system, whether in original determinations, dealing with appeals, actually implementing the decisions made and getting people back on planes where they came from. The only success I can think of from the last government in this area was the deal with Albania. It should have been a model, not unique.
The current government has made modest progress in dealing with appeals and deportations but it is a pale shadow of what is needed. In my view the only realistic approach is an amnesty for most of those who have not been removed in 10 years or more and try to focus resources on the new arrivals/overstayers etc.
Isn't the bigger problem that many-to-most asylum applicants turn out to have a perfectly valid case under the established rules and the last government was terrified of acknowledging that? Hence keeping people in limbo, until they could be magicked away to Africa.
The rules are a load of bollox from from 70+ years ago , be as well saying we should bring back deportation. They are economic immigrants , illegally entering Britain and abusing the lax rules. You shoudl not just be able to travel through a shedload of safe countries to the one of your choice and say you want to live here free on state subsidies. Anyone who thinks that is sensible is not right in the head. Bigger problem is the state largesse they get from UK and hence the stampede to get here.
They are not economic immigrants. They are overwhelmingly young men of fighting age who are fleeing either conscription or (worse) its gangster equivalent.
2024 figures, top 5 source countries were Pakistan (10,542), Afghanistan (8,508), Iran (8,099), Bangladesh (7,225), and Syria (6,680). Pakistan and Bangladesh do not have conscription, I note. (Also in the top ten are, in no particular order, India, Iraq, Eritrea, Sudan and Vietnam. Note acceptance rates vary considerably, from 99% for those from Sudan to 2% for those from India.)
In terms of age and gender, I can't find a detailed breakdown, but for the year ending March 2025, we had:
Male (17 and below): 11% Female (17 and below): 8% Male (18+): 59% Female (18+): 21%
Young men of so-called "fighting age" must be a subset of 18+ men, so they must be less than 59%. Your claim that they "are overwhelmingly young men of fighting age" does not seem to stand up.
TBF 15-17 could be considered of fighting age in some circs - and even younger children in certain ones. And even without that, there is the issue of how long it takes to get out; there's a race with time.
So have I got this about right, the US deal is Ukraine give up land you currently control to Russia, buy $100bn of weapons from the US, give drone tech to US, UK / EU finance $50bn of the deal and also provide the peacekeeping force?
The mafia were more generous with their sit down peace deals.
It raises the question of what Trump is threatening Ukraine and the Europeans that he will do if Ukraine doesn't accept the deal?
Not sell weapons to us for Ukraine. That would be (very) problematic. As we saw when the GOP last stopped arms supplies from the US for several months.
Ukraine is not going to give up Donetsk, I think. It would be crazy to do so.
The 'deal' is in return for supporting any security guarantee in place after a ceasefire. The arms purchases for Ukraine are largely being financed this side of the Atlantic already.
Prediction: Reform will win the next General election and Farage will be PM. Not because I want it but the left liberal kumbaya types continue to bury their heads in sand in complete denial of the absurdity that our asylum system has become. The more they refuse to listen to ordinary people with ordinary legitimate concerns, the more they try to stigmatise protest and generalise protestors as right wing racist xenophobes, the more they will do Reform's work for them as the only party prepared to listen...
Ali is... an interesting figure. He was thrown out of the Green Party for being anti-trans. He may be right, but he's not representative of Green Party thought.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
One of my sisters-in-law-in-law* uses the word "lot" when referring to someone else's family. She also pronounces ask as "arks".
*Other languages probably have a better term for the wife of your wife's brother.
Trump blames Ukraine for getting invaded: "It's not a war that should've been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size ... they took probably a lot of money too."
This is what he truly believes. It's Ukraine's fault for refusing to immediately surrender. Think of it this way: He sees Russia as the man and Ukraine as the woman.
Fundamentally Trump is a coward and he's scared of Putin.
He idolises Putin
Or Putin has something on him. It's far from impossible.
Prediction: Reform will win the next General election and Farage will be PM. Not because I want it but the left liberal kumbaya types continue to bury their heads in sand in complete denial of the absurdity that our asylum system has become. The more they refuse to listen to ordinary people with ordinary legitimate concerns, the more they try to stigmatise protest and generalise protestors as right wing racist xenophobes, the more they will do Reform's work for them as the only party prepared to listen...
Trump blames Ukraine for getting invaded: "It's not a war that should've been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size ... they took probably a lot of money too."
This is what he truly believes. It's Ukraine's fault for refusing to immediately surrender. Think of it this way: He sees Russia as the man and Ukraine as the woman.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
One of my sisters-in-law-in-law* uses the word "lot" when referring to someone else's family. She also pronounces ask as "arks".
*Other languages probably have a better term for the wife of your wife's brother.
Arks. Aaaaagh. Im not married so my sister and brother in law have only to correctly refer to me as his most magnificent greatness
Trump blames Ukraine for getting invaded: "It's not a war that should've been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size ... they took probably a lot of money too."
This is what he truly believes. It's Ukraine's fault for refusing to immediately surrender. Think of it this way: He sees Russia as the man and Ukraine as the woman.
Fundamentally Trump is a coward and he's scared of Putin.
He idolises Putin
A reminder about videos and two way mirrors in Moscow hotel rooms can focus the mind.
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
One of my sisters-in-law-in-law* uses the word "lot" when referring to someone else's family. She also pronounces ask as "arks".
*Other languages probably have a better term for the wife of your wife's brother.
I just use 'sister in law'. Relatedly, IIRC in the olden days the term 'cousin' covered a multiplicity of relations too, far more than what we call cousins. Other helpful terms: partner (covers most things) and concubine (covers the rest but only use in private).
1) the old birds whinging about the shit, impersonal funeral and 2) anyone who says 'that's less than I thought' whilst paying through the nose for life cover.
Thank you for your attention to this doesn't matter
You can add people who refer to their family in ads as 'my lot' . Fuck right off.
One of my sisters-in-law-in-law* uses the word "lot" when referring to someone else's family. She also pronounces ask as "arks".
*Other languages probably have a better term for the wife of your wife's brother.
I just use 'sister in law'. Relatedly, IIRC in the olden days the term 'cousin' covered a multiplicity of relations too, far more than what we call cousins. Other helpful terms: partner (covers most things) and concubine (covers the rest but only use in private).
Downing Street has created four brand new “digital roles” to beef up its content creation team in efforts to boost Starmer’s image. Alice Hodgson, Head of Digital Communications at No10, posted on LinkedIn this morning:
“We’re looking for creative leaders and makers with big ideas to join the team behind the Prime Minister’s and 10 Downing Street’s digital channels. If you’re passionate about storytelling, visuals, and creating content that reaches millions, this is your chance.”
Prediction: Reform will win the next General election and Farage will be PM. Not because I want it but the left liberal kumbaya types continue to bury their heads in sand in complete denial of the absurdity that our asylum system has become. The more they refuse to listen to ordinary people with ordinary legitimate concerns, the more they try to stigmatise protest and generalise protestors as right wing racist xenophobes, the more they will do Reform's work for them as the only party prepared to listen...
Ali is... an interesting figure. He was thrown out of the Green Party for being anti-trans. He may be right, but he's not representative of Green Party thought.
Sorry to hear about your loss Flatlander. I hope you will give him a good send off and make it memorable.
About Charities - DYOR. The title is simply a tax wrapper. There’s a lot with high overheads and low impact. There are many more now who are doing outsourced work for HMG so you just be subsidising HMG again, indirectly.
Ha, yes, I am aware that many charities are less than transparent about what they actually do and am not a big fan of many.
In this case my thought is a trust which could do its own specific work. Mrs Flatlander is already a trustee on a land management charity (mostly restoring wetlands along a river course) and has lots of connections with the local wildlife trusts.
Whether it is what my father would have wanted is a different question. He didn't offer an opinion on much.
It was easier in my case because my father had laid out in black and white exactly what charities he wished to benefit and how much, in his will.
But the thought occurs that if the money is now going to be yours, you have no other use for it and do not wish to hand it to the Treasury, you could use it to do a cause that would in itself be good anyway even if you are not sure what your father’s own views would have been. That would not be a bad thing. Could be accessible paths, nature reserves, mobility scooter charities…
IIRC It takes 10% of the estate (not just the IHT-liable bit) to go to charity for IHT on the liable portion of the rest to be cut by 4%. I don't think - pace @MattW if I have not misread - that the 10% is in any way a cap, just a trigge rpoint. HMG website: "The estate can pay Inheritance Tax at a reduced rate of 36% on some assets if you leave 10% or more of the ‘net value’ to charity in your will. (The net value is the estate’s total value minus any debts.)" Which seems not mucvh of a concession if there is not much IHT anyway, ergo is it worth losing much sleep over? Though the newts etc. are a different matter!
Indeed, it's worth considering whether Flatlander could even be better to inherit and then give under Gift Aid (which adds 25% to the charity's take) or the one-off gift of shares or assets procedure - especially if in the higher income tax bracket or sustaining a capital gain, which could apply if the house increased in price between probate and sale and a deed of appropriation was used.
If making a donation to charity from the estate one might consider whether to do some of it as shares rather than as cash. This is a very good way of using up small holdings of shares (often alocattions from privatizations) that would be inconvenient and relatively expensive to sell from within the estate or transfer to a person. Some charities will accept the shares but others aren't set up for that. Rather Sharegift do it and then send the money to one of the charities on their list with a dosh of additional money too. I got them to add one of my preferred charities to their list! Result! https://www.sharegift.org/
Gift Aid only works for an income tax payer - and having retired recently I am not currently paying any.
The idea would be to "give away" everything above the tax threshold. It wouldn't be to just reduce the tax rate (which as you point out would need a very large legacy to make direct financial sense).
Anyway, the question was really a moral one. Should I pay HMRC or not?
But talking about Gift Aid reminds me that the government already encourages this kind of thing day in day out, so why worry?
Indeed. I was surprised when I realised the number of concessions on IT and CGT HMG give to the wealthy. Even setting up political think tanks. And let's not forget that gifts to political parties are also free of IHT (not sure if they count as charities for the 4% deduction, though!).
One thing I will not be doing is leaving any money to a political party - either my father's or mine!
The whole system needs reform. There are too many clauses for this that and the other - presumably added thanks to whoever was lobbying the government of the day.
If there were no exceptions I'd just have paid up and not worried about it, but to be honest IHT needs to go - to be replaced with something with more granularity such as a LVT. At least it wouldn't be additional hassle when you least need it.
+ It would be fun watching the Conservatives deal with Labour being the ones to do it. Subverts expectations.
(1% council (property value) tax would cover IHT, CGT and Stamp Duty. Would be the biggest budget out-of-hat moment ever)
Why was Jenrick boasting about opening new hotels every month? Because people did not want potentially illegal immigrants wandering the streets or cluttering the doorways of their shops, I suppose. So he found the solution to one problem, more secure accommodation, by creating another.
The absolute failure, however, for which he bore at least some responsibility (no doubt the Treasury and resources did too) was the grinding to a halt of our immigration assessment system, whether in original determinations, dealing with appeals, actually implementing the decisions made and getting people back on planes where they came from. The only success I can think of from the last government in this area was the deal with Albania. It should have been a model, not unique.
The current government has made modest progress in dealing with appeals and deportations but it is a pale shadow of what is needed. In my view the only realistic approach is an amnesty for most of those who have not been removed in 10 years or more and try to focus resources on the new arrivals/overstayers etc.
Isn't the bigger problem that many-to-most asylum applicants turn out to have a perfectly valid case under the established rules and the last government was terrified of acknowledging that? Hence keeping people in limbo, until they could be magicked away to Africa.
The rules are a load of bollox from from 70+ years ago , be as well saying we should bring back deportation. They are economic immigrants , illegally entering Britain and abusing the lax rules. You shoudl not just be able to travel through a shedload of safe countries to the one of your choice and say you want to live here free on state subsidies. Anyone who thinks that is sensible is not right in the head. Bigger problem is the state largesse they get from UK and hence the stampede to get here.
They are not economic immigrants. They are overwhelmingly young men of fighting age who are fleeing either conscription or (worse) its gangster equivalent.
They are a bunch of roasters who should be taken by the breek erse and put back on the next dinghy back
Comments
Districts are FPTP, so you get all the unrepresentative effects of that*, even if you have an entirely independent, non partisan redistricting commission. When a state is strongly GOP or Democrat, then it's not going to be representative at all.
That on its own is not gerrymandering.
When a state decides its going to redistrict, with the stated intention of giving the governing party extra seats in Congress, outside of the normal schedule, than you can fairly label that gerrymandering.
Where to draw the line between those two extremes is, as you say, a charged political debate.
But I'd note that Newsom's move in California is entirely contingent on the Texas gerrymander. If that doesn't happen, then neither will the CA proposal.
*As an aside, if Democrats were offered proportional representation across the nation they take it; the GOP almost certainly wouldn't
Davey comes out well.
Very pro Russia again ("you don't start a war with a country ten times your size") and "no US feet on the ground in Ukraine"...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15013641/MP-takes-life-Finlands-parliament-building-cops-descend-scene.html
Davey does indeed continue to poll fairly well.
I do find it ironic that because the house we are attached to is in a different street our house is in a lower tax band then theirs. Ours at the time even had an extension that theirs still doesn't have..
To get to parity, nationwide, I came up with a swing of 1% from Republican to Democrat.
That gives results of 24:14 in Texas, to the Republicans, and 8:44 in California, on current boundaries.
The Texas gerrymander shifts that to 29:9 and the California gerrymander to 3:49.
That leaves the Texas Democrats on 24% of seats, compared to 43% of votes, and the California Republicans on 6% of seats, compared to 37% of votes.
Unsurpassing and frankly I cannot see any case for UK troops to be on the ground either as Starmer seems to imply he is intending boots on the ground
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force
I fear that's about the only way any 'peace' that depends on Putin's goodwill might work.
Trump’s latest comments will only fool those who want to keep the charade going . European leaders are either in denial or plain stupid to think any US security guarantees will amount to anything .
The so called significant progress yesterday lasts as long as they are in the room with Trump .
He’s back to his normal self today .
If you uprated savings by the inflation rate you would create an inflationary spiral.
The reasons the UK are an attractive destination for some (and the UK does not get a lot of asylum seekers compared to many other countries) are (1) we speak English, (2) people wanting to join family/existing communities, and (3) asylum seekers going where the people smugglers send them rather than making much of an active choice. These are not easily changed.
A good way of reducing the number of people on state subsidies is to process claims more quickly. Make a determination and then, based on that, either deport or give asylum and the person can start contributing to society. Fortunately, we are seeing progress here. Deportations are up. The number staying in hotels is down.
The idea that you should not be able to travel through various safe countries before claiming asylum is very popular here in the UK, where we're at the end of a chain of safe countries. It's less popular in the countries on the frontline, like Greece and Italy, who would get even more claims. We should be clear that the number of refugees we get is small. The countries taking most refugees from Syria are Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. From Afghanistan, it's Iran and Pakistan. Tunisia has by far the most refugees from Libya. From Ukraine, it's Poland, Romania etc. We're lucky we've not faced a major refugee crisis in a bordering country.
We have in the past. The UK took in around a quarter of a million Belgians during WWI. We took around 65,000 Jewish refugees from the Nazis. When people talk about travelling through safe countries, I think of the many Jewish refugees from Germany who did stop in the first available safe country, like the Netherlands or France, only to then see those countries invaded. Those refugees, who had stopped in the first available safe country, went on to be killed in the Holocaust.
We’ve not even had Reeves’ Misery Budget 2: Electric Boogaloo, yet.
Stranger things though etc
It would have to be carefully framed.
It seems like both gerrymanders gain 5 seats for their parties?
And what happens if you instead assume a 1% swing from Democrat to Republican?
California's results are less fair under FPTP because the Republican vote in California is less efficient than the Democrat vote in Texas. But some other states are even less fair (sometimes because of gerrymandering, often not).
Nationally I don't know whose vote is going to be more efficient for the House - the Republican vote used to be more efficient (in 2012 Republicans won 234 vs 201 seats but lost the national vote 47.7% to 48.8%, though this was partly due to Republican gerrymandering), but that seems to be changing in recent elections.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0lpn21v
The mafia were more generous with their sit down peace deals.
The House is different, it depends on voter efficiency, and to a certain extent on who manages to most successfully gerrymander. But at the last election the Republicans seem to have lost their previous advantage - the tipping point seat was Pennsylvania 7th, which Republicans won by a margin of 1%, whereas they won the national vote by a margin of 2.6%. It's a bit complicated because there were more seats where the Democrats had no candidate than seats where Republicans had no candidate. But probably if Democrats get more votes overall, they will also get more seats. Hence Trump's request to Texas to find a few extra seats.
Not sure Zelenskyy should commit to paying $100bn to the US for security garauntees until he's shopped around and seen if protection is being offered at a more affordable price by other players in the space such as the Cosa Nostra, the Crips or the Triads.
https://bsky.app/profile/explaintrade.com/post/3lwqpc53vjs2p
Trump blames Ukraine for getting invaded: "It's not a war that should've been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size ... they took probably a lot of money too."
@digby56.bsky.social
This is what he truly believes. It's Ukraine's fault for refusing to immediately surrender. Think of it this way: He sees Russia as the man and Ukraine as the woman.
*Other languages probably have a better term for the wife of your wife's brother.
Shahrar Ali
@ShahrarAli
Prediction: Reform will win the next General election and Farage will be PM. Not because I want it but the left liberal kumbaya types continue to bury their heads in sand in complete denial of the absurdity that our asylum system has become. The more they refuse to listen to ordinary people with ordinary legitimate concerns, the more they try to stigmatise protest and generalise protestors as right wing racist xenophobes, the more they will do Reform's work for them as the only party prepared to listen...
https://x.com/ShahrarAli/status/1957542545543819699
In terms of age and gender, I can't find a detailed breakdown, but for the year ending March 2025, we had:
Male (17 and below): 11%
Female (17 and below): 8%
Male (18+): 59%
Female (18+): 21%
Young men of so-called "fighting age" must be a subset of 18+ men, so they must be less than 59%. Your claim that they "are overwhelmingly young men of fighting age" does not seem to stand up.
"It felt like the next part of the bill lectured me on my water use. I’m using 10% more, apparently. When I began reading the third page, the penny dropped. My water use isn’t the story.
Hidden in a dazzling array of figures was the new rate per cubic metre. For freshwater, it’s up 29%. For wastewater, up 35% (I worked that out myself, it wasn’t spelled out). Fixed charges are also up 98% and 40%, respectively. My apparent 10% increase in use pales by comparison.
My monthly bill jumped from £65 to £107 – something that’s only mentioned on page four of my bill. That’s a 65% rise and it has very little, if anything, to do with increased use."
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/confusing-water-bills-hide-the-real-story-aTW8I9a18Nbt?utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=4645778-C_MP_EM_PROD__20250819&mi_u=219607490&mi_ecmp=C_MP_EM_PROD__20250819
But the view is marvellous, so what can you do?
That would be (very) problematic. As we saw when the GOP last stopped arms supplies from the US for several months.
Ukraine is not going to give up Donetsk, I think. It would be crazy to do so.
The 'deal' is in return for supporting any security guarantee in place after a ceasefire.
The arms purchases for Ukraine are largely being financed this side of the Atlantic already.
It's far from impossible.
Im not married so my sister and brother in law have only to correctly refer to me as his most magnificent greatness
I am willing to meet Zelensky the way Trump is willing to release the Epstein files.
Today Trump says Ukraine should not be in NATO, that France, Germany and UK will supply boots on the ground but he will not
I really do not see this war being resolved as a result of yesterday's Trump's circus
NEW THREAD
Is there a word for a male concubine?