He will appeal to the Supreme Court and likely win, his party also has a majority in Congress so can amend the relevant Act
Trump's majorities in Congress are tiny, the tariffs are deeply unpopular and his Congressional management is terrible so I don't see them getting through.
It's the Supreme Court or his main economic policy is gone.
Or of course he just dispenses once and for all with this tedious rule of law stuff, as we all know he'd love to.
He will appeal to the Supreme Court and likely win, his party also has a majority in Congress so can amend the relevant Act
Trump's majorities in Congress are tiny, the tariffs are deeply unpopular and his Congressional management is terrible so I don't see them getting through.
It's the Supreme Court or his main economic policy is gone.
Or of course he just dispenses once and for all with this tedious rule of law stuff, as we all know he'd love to.
And the law is clear: only Congress has the right to levy taxes, outside a few very minor exceptions.
(The exception wrt tariffs is that they are temporary, and only in the event of economic emergency. The great irony is that Trump's claim that the economy has never been better rather contradicts the 'economic emergency' argument.)
127 pages from the federal appeals court to explain Trump's tariffs are unconstitutional.
No doubt the SCOTUS will issue a single page in October with "He's the King" scrawled across it in black crayon.
The good thing about law is that both the US and UK have so much of it that judges, who knows an awful lot of it (Both High court here, Court of Appeals here, Court of Appeals in the US, SCOTUS in the US in these cases can all come to different conclusions with the same body, particularly if it's on topics such as immigration or tariffs. And none of them are "wrong", although the US is more inclined to make law from whole cloth which it did with Marbury (Effectively granting itself judicial review).
That Reform at 35% poll is fascinating. Reminds of the brief May-gasm and Starmer 2024. Within a year of govt both crashed to the teens or close to.
The most difficult to predict question in politics right now, is who/what is the beneficiary if the same pattern applies to Farage. One or both of the old brands recover? Or something entirely new
I don't think I would ever vote Reform because although Farage is a libertarian I don't think I'd trust the rest of them not to be authoritarians when they get into office, and do things like introduce ID cards. But despite that I'm not at all surprised to see the party on 35% with at least one pollster.
Farage is *not* a libertarian. Not to any degree at all.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
Admiralty House, I'd assume. Pretty sure I remember reading she had a flat, but ended the contract on it a while back.
I think I'd want an actual home I owned as a backup, with so many people wanting her out of the job
Admiralty house is a long way away from her constituency. So where does she stay when doing constituency work? A mate’s sofa? A Britannia hotel, if any are free these days? Another flat she rents at the taxpayer expense?
How does she even have time to enjoy her Hove flat what with being Deputy PM and other London political duties and the demands of being a constituency MP?
I thought part of the issue is that she's still paying council tax at the Ashton home, as her children live there, and that's her base in Manchester?
If it's the case that this is simply her buying a house after a divorce, then the stamp duty doesn't seem to be an issue, as it would be odd to indefinitely stay on the deeds of a house you've handed over in the divorce.
If she stays with her ex and the kids when in Manchester, which seems ideal if it's an amicable divorce - as it wouldn't make much sense renting somewhere or getting hotels and moving the kids about.
The council tax then needs to be paid on a second home in either Brighton or Ashton. It doesn't seem to make much difference financially which way round it is.
There are also the regulations about transfer of main residence and how long you can keep the first one for before the extra 3% Stamp Duty kicks in.
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
Admiralty House, I'd assume. Pretty sure I remember reading she had a flat, but ended the contract on it a while back.
I think I'd want an actual home I owned as a backup, with so many people wanting her out of the job
Admiralty house is a long way away from her constituency. So where does she stay when doing constituency work? A mate’s sofa? A Britannia hotel, if any are free these days? Another flat she rents at the taxpayer expense?
How does she even have time to enjoy her Hove flat what with being Deputy PM and other London political duties and the demands of being a constituency MP?
I thought part of the issue is that she's still paying council tax at the Ashton home, as her children live there, and that's her base in Manchester?
If it's the case that this is simply her buying a house after a divorce, then the stamp duty doesn't seem to be an issue, as it would be odd to indefinitely stay on the deeds of a house you've handed over in the divorce.
If she stays with her ex and the kids when in Manchester, which seems ideal if it's an amicable divorce - as it wouldn't make much sense renting somewhere or getting hotels and moving the kids about.
The council tax then needs to be paid on a second home in either Brighton or Ashton. It doesn't seem to make much difference financially which way round it is.
There are also the regulations about transfer of main residence and how long you can keep the first one for before the extra 3% Stamp Duty kicks in.
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
But are the rules and criteria for determining “main residence”, for council tax purposes, and for stamp duty purposes, the same?
Incredible how many right of centre commentators now no longer believe in an independent judiciary or the rule of law.
If a result in a court is not what their street and online mob want then the system is wrong and should be torn down.
This is rule by mob.
Twenty years ago any conservative would run a bloody mile from this.
I think it can hold for now, though there were some scuffles already between protestors and police in Epping tonight and protests are being organised at asylum hotels nationwide this weekend.
However, if the court in October rules that hotels housing asylum seekers full time is no change of use and no planning permission required then it will be very difficult for the Starmer government to maintain public order if the Home Office insists on keeping such hotels open for migrants funded by them
That'll be October. Autumn; cold and wet. There may still be protests, but most of the protestors will stay at home in the warm to beat their wives.
Incredible how many right of centre commentators now no longer believe in an independent judiciary or the rule of law.
If a result in a court is not what their street and online mob want then the system is wrong and should be torn down.
This is rule by mob.
Twenty years ago any conservative would run a bloody mile from this.
I think it can hold for now, though there were some scuffles already between protestors and police in Epping tonight and protests are being organised at asylum hotels nationwide this weekend.
However, if the court in October rules that hotels housing asylum seekers full time is no change of use and no planning permission required then it will be very difficult for the Starmer government to maintain public order if the Home Office insists on keeping such hotels open for migrants funded by them
That'll be October. Autumn; cold and wet. There may still be protests, but most of the protestors will stay at home in the warm to beat their wives.
Ha ha! Quite extraordinary to still find lefties who think anyone with a different view on immigration is a racist and/or wife beater. If the same mindset still infects the labour top table, 20% really is not a floor to how low they might fall.
Incredible how many right of centre commentators now no longer believe in an independent judiciary or the rule of law.
If a result in a court is not what their street and online mob want then the system is wrong and should be torn down.
This is rule by mob.
Twenty years ago any conservative would run a bloody mile from this.
I think it can hold for now, though there were some scuffles already between protestors and police in Epping tonight and protests are being organised at asylum hotels nationwide this weekend.
However, if the court in October rules that hotels housing asylum seekers full time is no change of use and no planning permission required then it will be very difficult for the Starmer government to maintain public order if the Home Office insists on keeping such hotels open for migrants funded by them
That'll be October. Autumn; cold and wet. There may still be protests, but most of the protestors will stay at home in the warm to beat their wives.
Ha ha! Quite extraordinary to still find lefties who think anyone with a different view on immigration is a racist and/or wife beater. If the same mindset still infects the labour top table, 20% really is not a floor to how low they might fall.
It's quite extraordinary that you think I'm a lefty. Perhaps compared to you I am, but that might be due to your position on the political spectrum...
Incredible how many right of centre commentators now no longer believe in an independent judiciary or the rule of law.
If a result in a court is not what their street and online mob want then the system is wrong and should be torn down.
This is rule by mob.
Twenty years ago any conservative would run a bloody mile from this.
I think it can hold for now, though there were some scuffles already between protestors and police in Epping tonight and protests are being organised at asylum hotels nationwide this weekend.
However, if the court in October rules that hotels housing asylum seekers full time is no change of use and no planning permission required then it will be very difficult for the Starmer government to maintain public order if the Home Office insists on keeping such hotels open for migrants funded by them
That'll be October. Autumn; cold and wet. There may still be protests, but most of the protestors will stay at home in the warm to beat their wives.
Ha ha! Quite extraordinary to still find lefties who think anyone with a different view on immigration is a racist and/or wife beater. If the same mindset still infects the labour top table, 20% really is not a floor to how low they might fall.
It's quite extraordinary that you think I'm a lefty. Perhaps compared to you I am, but that might be due to your position on the political spectrum...
Not sure why it’s hard for you to understand that some issues cross wide segments of society. Take these “wife beating” protestors on the front page of The Bun this morning:
Incredible how many right of centre commentators now no longer believe in an independent judiciary or the rule of law.
If a result in a court is not what their street and online mob want then the system is wrong and should be torn down.
This is rule by mob.
Twenty years ago any conservative would run a bloody mile from this.
I think it can hold for now, though there were some scuffles already between protestors and police in Epping tonight and protests are being organised at asylum hotels nationwide this weekend.
However, if the court in October rules that hotels housing asylum seekers full time is no change of use and no planning permission required then it will be very difficult for the Starmer government to maintain public order if the Home Office insists on keeping such hotels open for migrants funded by them
That'll be October. Autumn; cold and wet. There may still be protests, but most of the protestors will stay at home in the warm to beat their wives.
Ha ha! Quite extraordinary to still find lefties who think anyone with a different view on immigration is a racist and/or wife beater. If the same mindset still infects the labour top table, 20% really is not a floor to how low they might fall.
It's quite extraordinary that you think I'm a lefty. Perhaps compared to you I am, but that might be due to your position on the political spectrum...
Not sure why it’s hard for you to understand that some issues cross wide segments of society. Take these “wife beating” protestors on the front page of The Bun this morning:
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
Many many moons ago I was on subsistence with PO Telephones, during my apprenticeship , pre BT and it was generous, we lived like kings.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
Admiralty House, I'd assume. Pretty sure I remember reading she had a flat, but ended the contract on it a while back.
I think I'd want an actual home I owned as a backup, with so many people wanting her out of the job
Admiralty house is a long way away from her constituency. So where does she stay when doing constituency work? A mate’s sofa? A Britannia hotel, if any are free these days? Another flat she rents at the taxpayer expense?
How does she even have time to enjoy her Hove flat what with being Deputy PM and other London political duties and the demands of being a constituency MP?
I thought part of the issue is that she's still paying council tax at the Ashton home, as her children live there, and that's her base in Manchester?
If it's the case that this is simply her buying a house after a divorce, then the stamp duty doesn't seem to be an issue, as it would be odd to indefinitely stay on the deeds of a house you've handed over in the divorce.
If she stays with her ex and the kids when in Manchester, which seems ideal if it's an amicable divorce - as it wouldn't make much sense renting somewhere or getting hotels and moving the kids about.
The council tax then needs to be paid on a second home in either Brighton or Ashton. It doesn't seem to make much difference financially which way round it is.
There are also the regulations about transfer of main residence and how long you can keep the first one for before the extra 3% Stamp Duty kicks in.
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
Or just bent as a three bob bit, they are all in it for themselves and will bend any rule to the limit to get their noses further in the trough
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
Many many moons ago I was on subsistence with PO Telephones, during my apprenticeship , pre BT and it was generous, we lived like kings.
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
Many many moons ago I was on subsistence with PO Telephones, during my apprenticeship , pre BT and it was generous, we lived like kings.
Social Security’s chief data officer, Charles Borges, has resigned, three days after submitting a whistle-blower complaint that alleged members of DOGE had uploaded the confidential personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans to an insecure cloud server. https://x.com/NickNehamas/status/1961507992857157861
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
Admiralty House, I'd assume. Pretty sure I remember reading she had a flat, but ended the contract on it a while back.
I think I'd want an actual home I owned as a backup, with so many people wanting her out of the job
Admiralty house is a long way away from her constituency. So where does she stay when doing constituency work? A mate’s sofa? A Britannia hotel, if any are free these days? Another flat she rents at the taxpayer expense?
How does she even have time to enjoy her Hove flat what with being Deputy PM and other London political duties and the demands of being a constituency MP?
I thought part of the issue is that she's still paying council tax at the Ashton home, as her children live there, and that's her base in Manchester?
If it's the case that this is simply her buying a house after a divorce, then the stamp duty doesn't seem to be an issue, as it would be odd to indefinitely stay on the deeds of a house you've handed over in the divorce.
If she stays with her ex and the kids when in Manchester, which seems ideal if it's an amicable divorce - as it wouldn't make much sense renting somewhere or getting hotels and moving the kids about.
The council tax then needs to be paid on a second home in either Brighton or Ashton. It doesn't seem to make much difference financially which way round it is.
There are also the regulations about transfer of main residence and how long you can keep the first one for before the extra 3% Stamp Duty kicks in.
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
But are the rules and criteria for determining “main residence”, for council tax purposes, and for stamp duty purposes, the same?
still extremely iffy and shows her for what she is, makes Tories look like good un's.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
Admiralty House, I'd assume. Pretty sure I remember reading she had a flat, but ended the contract on it a while back.
I think I'd want an actual home I owned as a backup, with so many people wanting her out of the job
Admiralty house is a long way away from her constituency. So where does she stay when doing constituency work? A mate’s sofa? A Britannia hotel, if any are free these days? Another flat she rents at the taxpayer expense?
How does she even have time to enjoy her Hove flat what with being Deputy PM and other London political duties and the demands of being a constituency MP?
I thought part of the issue is that she's still paying council tax at the Ashton home, as her children live there, and that's her base in Manchester?
If it's the case that this is simply her buying a house after a divorce, then the stamp duty doesn't seem to be an issue, as it would be odd to indefinitely stay on the deeds of a house you've handed over in the divorce.
If she stays with her ex and the kids when in Manchester, which seems ideal if it's an amicable divorce - as it wouldn't make much sense renting somewhere or getting hotels and moving the kids about.
The council tax then needs to be paid on a second home in either Brighton or Ashton. It doesn't seem to make much difference financially which way round it is.
There are also the regulations about transfer of main residence and how long you can keep the first one for before the extra 3% Stamp Duty kicks in.
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
But are the rules and criteria for determining “main residence”, for council tax purposes, and for stamp duty purposes, the same?
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
Admiralty House, I'd assume. Pretty sure I remember reading she had a flat, but ended the contract on it a while back.
I think I'd want an actual home I owned as a backup, with so many people wanting her out of the job
Admiralty house is a long way away from her constituency. So where does she stay when doing constituency work? A mate’s sofa? A Britannia hotel, if any are free these days? Another flat she rents at the taxpayer expense?
How does she even have time to enjoy her Hove flat what with being Deputy PM and other London political duties and the demands of being a constituency MP?
I thought part of the issue is that she's still paying council tax at the Ashton home, as her children live there, and that's her base in Manchester?
If it's the case that this is simply her buying a house after a divorce, then the stamp duty doesn't seem to be an issue, as it would be odd to indefinitely stay on the deeds of a house you've handed over in the divorce.
If she stays with her ex and the kids when in Manchester, which seems ideal if it's an amicable divorce - as it wouldn't make much sense renting somewhere or getting hotels and moving the kids about.
The council tax then needs to be paid on a second home in either Brighton or Ashton. It doesn't seem to make much difference financially which way round it is.
There are also the regulations about transfer of main residence and how long you can keep the first one for before the extra 3% Stamp Duty kicks in.
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
Or just bent as a three bob bit, they are all in it for themselves and will bend any rule to the limit to get their noses further in the trough
Wait until I tell you about the Scottish Parliament!
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
Many many moons ago I was on subsistence with PO Telephones, during my apprenticeship , pre BT and it was generous, we lived like kings.
I did away with all that.
In the mid 1980s £13.30 was not a lot for B&B and an evening meal in either eg Salisbury or Ealing !
It was possible, but only with a fairly select network of B&Bs at around £8 per night.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
That seems to be quite a modest reaction compared to asking them to move their pushchair, or their automobile . At least for some.
It's about entitlement and expectation, and the Bus Company reaction is funny. They don't give a damn about customer service when push comes really to shove. These are the same people who spent £££ fighting a legal action to Supreme Court level to avoid their drivers having a clear responsibility to make Karen (M or F) remove her pushchair from the wheelchair space so that a wheelchair user could get on the bus; they would prefer to leave the person behind. https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/firstgroup-plc-v-paulley
This is funny, though: When Rachel asks the passenger to turn his phone down because it's distracting her, he calls her "the most miserable bus driver I have come across in my entire life" and gets off the bus in a huff.
The strongest I have had was from the chap who had entirely blocked the ability of mobility aid users to enter the local hospital, so they all had to go back 100m down the pavement, get off at the pedestrian crossing at the bottom, and wheel their way 100m back up the main drive with it's 3-4000 vehicles movements per day.
That was "get a life you fucking prick". It was a late 20s man in his 10+ years' old Mercedes, presumably with a lack of equipment, and there was a free parking space about 20m further away from the entrance. It had been there about half an hour. It was just not thinking beyond the end of his bonnet, and "as close as possibel" to deliver a family member for a routine appointent.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Can any PBers name them (without Googling) before I go to bed?
(That means you have about 20 minutes.)
Tennessee? Kentucky?
Tennessee is one. Good job.
I do know the other one, but I confirmed it via googling so I won’t spoil it by saying it here.
I was completely wrong in my initial thinking - I thought it might be a state in the New England area where lots of small states cluster together - but @rkrkrk put me right.
rottenborough February 7 "Brian Stelter posted a December 9, 2017, quote from the New York Times:
"Before taking office, Mr. Trump told top aides to think of each presidential day as an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals."
Stelter wrote: “I think about this quote a lot.” "
Heather Richardson email - 'Letters from an American'
Now, I don't want to get anybody's hopes up, but, DementiaDon had no public events on Thursday. Or Friday. He has none scheduled so far this weekend...
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
Many many moons ago I was on subsistence with PO Telephones, during my apprenticeship , pre BT and it was generous, we lived like kings.
Spongeing off a state monopoly, malc ?
Working my butt off, if only the raj's nowadays had the same work ethics
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
Admiralty House, I'd assume. Pretty sure I remember reading she had a flat, but ended the contract on it a while back.
I think I'd want an actual home I owned as a backup, with so many people wanting her out of the job
Admiralty house is a long way away from her constituency. So where does she stay when doing constituency work? A mate’s sofa? A Britannia hotel, if any are free these days? Another flat she rents at the taxpayer expense?
How does she even have time to enjoy her Hove flat what with being Deputy PM and other London political duties and the demands of being a constituency MP?
I thought part of the issue is that she's still paying council tax at the Ashton home, as her children live there, and that's her base in Manchester?
If it's the case that this is simply her buying a house after a divorce, then the stamp duty doesn't seem to be an issue, as it would be odd to indefinitely stay on the deeds of a house you've handed over in the divorce.
If she stays with her ex and the kids when in Manchester, which seems ideal if it's an amicable divorce - as it wouldn't make much sense renting somewhere or getting hotels and moving the kids about.
The council tax then needs to be paid on a second home in either Brighton or Ashton. It doesn't seem to make much difference financially which way round it is.
There are also the regulations about transfer of main residence and how long you can keep the first one for before the extra 3% Stamp Duty kicks in.
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
Or just bent as a three bob bit, they are all in it for themselves and will bend any rule to the limit to get their noses further in the trough
Wait until I tell you about the Scottish Parliament!
amateurs compared to the real crooks palace in Westminster, they get peanuts compared to those troughers. Not even a paperclip goes unclaimed from the public purse.
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
Many many moons ago I was on subsistence with PO Telephones, during my apprenticeship , pre BT and it was generous, we lived like kings.
Spongeing off a state monopoly, malc ?
Working my butt off, if only the raj's nowadays had the same work ethics
70's were happy days Nigel, especially if you were a hard grafter
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
Funnily enough, many, many years ago I stayed in the Bell Hotel, Epping, for several days, on business.
I have to report that it was such a dump that me any my colleagues threatened to riot if we were ever put up there again.
You could have gone to the Epping Forest Hotel, formerly the County Hotel, where the Krays did much of their business deals. Now permanently closed, it seems.
Just maybe not come out again if you accidentally wandered into Ronnie and Reggie giving someone an offer they couldn't refuse
When it was a Best Western, I stayed there a few times, when I had to be back in east London having moved to the island. By then it had shed its underworld reputation and was a bog standard British hotel, where you got a basic room and a decent greasy buffet English breakfast and got to stay near London for less than £100. With nice walks nearby in the forest for the dog. Why it’s now closed I don’t know - maybe you should go investigate?
That must be fairly recent.
When I was doing the "on the road" 6 weeks with BT Engineers installing telephone exchanges in one of my Thin Sandwich summers, subsistence was £13.30 a day, which had to cover bed and breakfast, and anything else. And I'm only a Gen-Xer.
Many many moons ago I was on subsistence with PO Telephones, during my apprenticeship , pre BT and it was generous, we lived like kings.
Spongeing off a state monopoly, malc ?
Working my butt off, if only the raj's nowadays had the same work ethics
70's were happy days Nigel, especially if you were a hard grafter
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
No -> opposition calls for inquiry and then they are ignored is how it normally goes.
In any case, there's no chance of an inquiry because its not that complicated an issue. If she has done something dodgy, and the story keeps rumbling, Starmer will sack her. He's not going to want to hold an inquiry knowing that it will find she has broken the rules.
So... there's one remaining state that borders eight states. It's not in New England.
And then there's one state where you can travel south from it to six separate states (which is also a record). Anyone want to guess which that one is?
You could do five from Minnesota, Nebraska and Tennessee depending on how you define ‘travel south’ but I can’t see any with six.
Sorry, I mean that - travelling in a southern direction from some point in the State, you reach a different state.
If you like straight lines, this is the longest straight line at sea, without touching land. It would be quite a tough voyage.
"The final and most compelling route reaches 32,040km (19,910 miles) and goes from Sonmiani, near the port of Karachi in Pakistan, across the Arabian Sea, around both the bottom of South Africa and the bottom of Argentina and Chile, eventually landing in the Karingshy District of East Russia."
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
True it’s not a good look . I’m sure the general public would of course try and avoid an extra tax bill if they could and it seems as if she’s not broken any laws but given her brief and high profile she should have realised that something would leak .
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
No -> opposition calls for inquiry and then they are ignored is how it normally goes.
In any case, there's no chance of an inquiry because its not that complicated an issue. If she has done something dodgy, and the story keeps rumbling, Starmer will sack her. He's not going to want to hold an inquiry knowing that it will find she has broken the rules.
Rayner has certainly rather stupidly blotted her copy book, but has her own mandate as Deputy Leader. She can be sacked from cabinet, but not from that position. Indeed such a power struggle could see a coup against Starmer.
I think she is pretty safe, but it doesn't look good if she wants to be next leader.
I can't read the article, but here's another agnle:
"THE man who filmed a viral incident in Dundee in which a schoolgirl allegedly brandished a knife and axe has spoken out amid a rush of far-right misinformation."
""A 12-year-old girl has been charged with being in possession of offensive weapons. She will be referred to the relevant authorities and our enquiries are ongoing."
Fair play to @AngelaRayner on legally avoiding tax, she's a woman of the people for doing so. If you think you wouldn't do it if you could you're a liar.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
No -> opposition calls for inquiry and then they are ignored is how it normally goes.
In any case, there's no chance of an inquiry because its not that complicated an issue. If she has done something dodgy, and the story keeps rumbling, Starmer will sack her. He's not going to want to hold an inquiry knowing that it will find she has broken the rules.
Rayner has certainly rather stupidly blotted her copy book, but has her own mandate as Deputy Leader. She can be sacked from cabinet, but not from that position. Indeed such a power struggle could see a coup against Starmer.
I think she is pretty safe, but it doesn't look good if she wants to be next leader.
Gove is giving her a sympathetic ride on R4 today.
I can't read the article, but here's another agnle:
"THE man who filmed a viral incident in Dundee in which a schoolgirl allegedly brandished a knife and axe has spoken out amid a rush of far-right misinformation."
""A 12-year-old girl has been charged with being in possession of offensive weapons. She will be referred to the relevant authorities and our enquiries are ongoing."
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
No -> opposition calls for inquiry and then they are ignored is how it normally goes.
In any case, there's no chance of an inquiry because its not that complicated an issue. If she has done something dodgy, and the story keeps rumbling, Starmer will sack her. He's not going to want to hold an inquiry knowing that it will find she has broken the rules.
Rayner has certainly rather stupidly blotted her copy book, but has her own mandate as Deputy Leader. She can be sacked from cabinet, but not from that position. Indeed such a power struggle could see a coup against Starmer.
I think she is pretty safe, but it doesn't look good if she wants to be next leader.
Gove is giving her a sympathetic ride on R4 today.
Income tax funds the majority of departments, trying to identify how much each person had contributed in it and allocating a set percentage for that to the state pension or JSA would be vastly more expensive to administer than having NI ringfenced only for the state pension or JSA.
I see you edited this in so I never originally responded to it, but this is completely backwards.
Trying to identify how much anyone has contributed [in income tax] would cost nothing - HMRC already tracks this. You can log on to HMRC and see that quite easily: https://www.gov.uk/check-income-tax-current-year
But if you want to check NI you need to log on to a different system and check elsewhere.
So there'd be no issues saying that a threshold of having paid income tax in a year is the requirement to get pension and other contributions instead of NI.
Both already go into the same pot and spending comes out of the same pot already. There's no hypothecation already. So having it be unified rather having multiple systems would be cheaper, what is vastly more expensive is duplicating work unnecessarily that could be axed with a single system that is used for contributions.
Income Tax as I already said funds almost every government department, so not only would you have to identify it you would then have to break down the percentage of it for each taxpayer that should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA etc.
Whereas NI could automatically just be ringfenced solely for JSA and state pensions
You wouldn't have to break it down, since its already not ringfenced.
NI isn't ringfenced today.
You are pretending NI is something that its not.
It would be ringfenced and hypothecated under my plan
But it never has been.
Be far cheaper and easier to get rid of NI, and create a truly contributory system based on income tax contributions.
No contributions? No pension, no JSA etc
It effectively was when NI was set up in 1911.
They would be a vast administrative cost trying to work out contributions for pensions and JSA from income tax when it also funds so much else
No, it was never hypothecated, not even in 1911.
It is tax and spend. Be far cheaper to have one tax and make it truly contributions-based on that one tax? Or do you oppose contributions-based reforms?
There would be zero administrative cost to work out contributions for pension and JSA from income tax, just set a threshold that has to be met to earn the contribution - just as already happens today with NI.
In 1911 National Insurance was only used for state pensions, unemployment benefit and some health costs.
Income tax is a tax not an insurance there would be huge admin costs to work out what funds pensions and JSA from it given it also has to fund defence, the police, transport, customs, courts etc unlike ringfenced NI
The fundamental problem is that the National Insurance Fund was never actually funded. Instead of creating an endowment which could grow every year and allow a genuine insurance policy for Social Security, the various governments of the day simply raided the National Insurance monies to fund current expenditure. Instead of creating an asset, the UK has created a massive, open ended liability.
In the end private pensions have plugged a bit of the gap, but government began to tax those far more aggressively, while stupidly not capping ISAs. So unfunded pension liabilities are now degrading UK credit ratings with every passing year. Sooner or later national state pensions will probably have to be replaced by personal pensions accounts. A major and difficult change is coming and the simplistic answers of our more Fash friends will only add to the pressure.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
No -> opposition calls for inquiry and then they are ignored is how it normally goes.
In any case, there's no chance of an inquiry because its not that complicated an issue. If she has done something dodgy, and the story keeps rumbling, Starmer will sack her. He's not going to want to hold an inquiry knowing that it will find she has broken the rules.
Rayner has certainly rather stupidly blotted her copy book, but has her own mandate as Deputy Leader. She can be sacked from cabinet, but not from that position. Indeed such a power struggle could see a coup against Starmer.
I think she is pretty safe, but it doesn't look good if she wants to be next leader.
Gove is giving her a sympathetic ride on R4 today.
I can't read the article, but here's another agnle:
"THE man who filmed a viral incident in Dundee in which a schoolgirl allegedly brandished a knife and axe has spoken out amid a rush of far-right misinformation."
""A 12-year-old girl has been charged with being in possession of offensive weapons. She will be referred to the relevant authorities and our enquiries are ongoing."
It's a good job we don't have a far-right poster who tells us all to seek out the true story, but who is too frit to tell us the story himself....
I am old enough to remember when right wingers would clutch their pearls at teenagers carrying bladed weapons.
The bete noir of local social media here in Scotland in youths running amok, supposed enabled by free bus passes and the SNP's policy on justice for young people.
It's been amusing watching people get confused about what to think about this one.
Fair play to @AngelaRayner on legally avoiding tax, she's a woman of the people for doing so. If you think you wouldn't do it if you could you're a liar.
Her problem comes if people dig out any attacks on Tories or business people who have used legal ways of minimising tax.
Income tax funds the majority of departments, trying to identify how much each person had contributed in it and allocating a set percentage for that to the state pension or JSA would be vastly more expensive to administer than having NI ringfenced only for the state pension or JSA.
I see you edited this in so I never originally responded to it, but this is completely backwards.
Trying to identify how much anyone has contributed [in income tax] would cost nothing - HMRC already tracks this. You can log on to HMRC and see that quite easily: https://www.gov.uk/check-income-tax-current-year
But if you want to check NI you need to log on to a different system and check elsewhere.
So there'd be no issues saying that a threshold of having paid income tax in a year is the requirement to get pension and other contributions instead of NI.
Both already go into the same pot and spending comes out of the same pot already. There's no hypothecation already. So having it be unified rather having multiple systems would be cheaper, what is vastly more expensive is duplicating work unnecessarily that could be axed with a single system that is used for contributions.
Income Tax as I already said funds almost every government department, so not only would you have to identify it you would then have to break down the percentage of it for each taxpayer that should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA etc.
Whereas NI could automatically just be ringfenced solely for JSA and state pensions
You wouldn't have to break it down, since its already not ringfenced.
NI isn't ringfenced today.
You are pretending NI is something that its not.
It would be ringfenced and hypothecated under my plan
But it never has been.
Be far cheaper and easier to get rid of NI, and create a truly contributory system based on income tax contributions.
No contributions? No pension, no JSA etc
It effectively was when NI was set up in 1911.
They would be a vast administrative cost trying to work out contributions for pensions and JSA from income tax when it also funds so much else
No, it was never hypothecated, not even in 1911.
It is tax and spend. Be far cheaper to have one tax and make it truly contributions-based on that one tax? Or do you oppose contributions-based reforms?
There would be zero administrative cost to work out contributions for pension and JSA from income tax, just set a threshold that has to be met to earn the contribution - just as already happens today with NI.
In 1911 National Insurance was only used for state pensions, unemployment benefit and some health costs.
Income tax is a tax not an insurance there would be huge admin costs to work out what funds pensions and JSA from it given it also has to fund defence, the police, transport, customs, courts etc unlike ringfenced NI
The fundamental problem is that the National Insurance Fund was never actually funded. Instead of creating an endowment which could grow every year and allow a genuine insurance policy for Social Security, the various governments of the day simply raided the National Insurance monies to fund current expenditure. Instead of creating an asset, the UK has created a massive, open ended liability.
In the end private pensions have plugged a bit of the gap, but government began to tax those far more aggressively, while stupidly not capping ISAs. So unfunded pension liabilities are now degrading UK credit ratings with every passing year. Sooner or later national state pensions will probably have to be replaced by personal pensions accounts. A major and difficult change is coming and the simplistic answers of our more Fash friends will only add to the pressure.
The switch from unfunded to funded pensions requires double payment for several decades, so not likely to happen.
The rise in gilt rates is however very good for private savers and those with private pensions. As the charity that I am trustee for has investments of over £12 million we are doing well.
I note too that far from a buyers strike the recent Treasury gilt sale was 3 times oversubscribed.
Fair play to @AngelaRayner on legally avoiding tax, she's a woman of the people for doing so. If you think you wouldn't do it if you could you're a liar.
But it's the age-old problem for politicians: if they're not like us, then they're distant, cold or posh; they don't understand us. But if they do the same small misdemeanours or acts that we all do, then they're awful people. The public want politicians to be like them, but better than them. But if they're better than them, they're not one of them.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
The issue for me is contradictory declarations: he has told HMRC that Hove is her principal residence (stamp duty) as well as telling Tameside Council that it’s Manchester (council tax)
principal residence doesn't mean anything for council tax purposes
Another one with (potentially in this case) a job that may not allow them to take political positions.
There was Andrew Kilburn, also of Durham Council, who worked for the Council. And then there's the list of "personal reasons", which could be anything. The one-per-week run rate is still about right.
WTF happened to Nigel Farage's world-class vetting system?
What does she actually disagree with the Labour Group over?
Hard to tell, but this looks like the key phrase;
"I look forward to continuing work with residents, community groups and ward councillors, to ensure voices of the people are heard and acted upon - without compromise."
One of the key divisions in politics is between those who accept compromise and those who don't. Doesn't matter whether that compromise is with other people, nations or physical/mathematical reality.
After all, Councillor Jenkins is saying exactly the same thing as the Epping Hotel Protestors, but I suspect with a very different destination in mind.
Another one with (potentially in this case) a job that may not allow them to take political positions.
There was Andrew Kilburn, also of Durham Council, who worked for the Council. And then there's the list of "personal reasons", which could be anything. The one-per-week run rate is still about right.
WTF happened to Nigel Farage's world-class vetting system?
If quotes like this really are from the gentleman involved (and that's still not certain), it feels like a meeting-without-biscuits issue at the very least;
Another post reads: “97% of asylum seekers are lying about persecution in their home countries and the other 3% have been credible to the point of being believable. Source: me. Guess what job I do.”
In May this year the LEJOG and back again record was done in 5 days, 11 hours and 14 minutes by Sarah Ruggins, which beat the womens' record by 5 days, and the all-comers' record by nearly 7 hours.
That's a reduction of more than 5%, which is a hell of a cut even given how specialist it is as a record.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
The issue for me is contradictory declarations: he has told HMRC that Hove is her principal residence (stamp duty) as well as telling Tameside Council that it’s Manchester (council tax)
principal residence doesn't mean anything for council tax purposes
I don’t know how the UK rules work on this but could someone explain why this is the case? I’m presuming there is a good reason?
Surely you declare your principal residence for tax purposes, where you live for tax purposes, this would then be declared to the council for purposes of council tax. I would also imagine this is the same address for your employer and for your health records and so on.
If when you buy a new property you want to change your main residence to the new property why do you not have to also inform the council that this is now your main residence.
What are the rules with driving licences? Do they have to be addressed to your main residence, and does your car insurance? Don’t you have to inform the DVLA and insurers if you change your residence?
It seems utterly odd that you can claim to different official bodies different information.
In May this year the LEJOG and back again record was done in 5 days, 11 hours and 14 minutes by Sarah Ruggins, which beat the womens' record by 5 days, and the all-comers' record by nearly 7 hours.
That's a reduction of more than 5%, which is a hell of a cut even given how specialist it is as a record.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Starmer has been fairly quick to jettison people if they have done something improper. That's probably her biggest worry. But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It’s not just headlines in the telegraph though now. It’s the lead story on the Today programme, even ahead of, shock horror, US news. So it’s moving more into the zone where it becomes an issue for Starmer or dies but it’s not being ignored by all but the Telegraph.
Well I agree if it becomes a story on the BBC then it has more substance and is more of a problem. On the BBC weabite it is reported as Tories call for investigation of her tax affairs, which is not a worrying headline for her.
Isn’t that how all these stories go though that the opposition calls for an enquiry, then we have enquiry and then we have result.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
No -> opposition calls for inquiry and then they are ignored is how it normally goes.
In any case, there's no chance of an inquiry because its not that complicated an issue. If she has done something dodgy, and the story keeps rumbling, Starmer will sack her. He's not going to want to hold an inquiry knowing that it will find she has broken the rules.
Rayner has certainly rather stupidly blotted her copy book, but has her own mandate as Deputy Leader. She can be sacked from cabinet, but not from that position. Indeed such a power struggle could see a coup against Starmer.
I think she is pretty safe, but it doesn't look good if she wants to be next leader.
Gove is giving her a sympathetic ride on R4 today.
Govey who used to live rent free in the property they attack Rayner for living rent free in?
Pity his ex doesn't have the same scruples as Ravey does.
Income tax funds the majority of departments, trying to identify how much each person had contributed in it and allocating a set percentage for that to the state pension or JSA would be vastly more expensive to administer than having NI ringfenced only for the state pension or JSA.
I see you edited this in so I never originally responded to it, but this is completely backwards.
Trying to identify how much anyone has contributed [in income tax] would cost nothing - HMRC already tracks this. You can log on to HMRC and see that quite easily: https://www.gov.uk/check-income-tax-current-year
But if you want to check NI you need to log on to a different system and check elsewhere.
So there'd be no issues saying that a threshold of having paid income tax in a year is the requirement to get pension and other contributions instead of NI.
Both already go into the same pot and spending comes out of the same pot already. There's no hypothecation already. So having it be unified rather having multiple systems would be cheaper, what is vastly more expensive is duplicating work unnecessarily that could be axed with a single system that is used for contributions.
Income Tax as I already said funds almost every government department, so not only would you have to identify it you would then have to break down the percentage of it for each taxpayer that should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA etc.
Whereas NI could automatically just be ringfenced solely for JSA and state pensions
You wouldn't have to break it down, since its already not ringfenced.
NI isn't ringfenced today.
You are pretending NI is something that its not.
It would be ringfenced and hypothecated under my plan
But it never has been.
Be far cheaper and easier to get rid of NI, and create a truly contributory system based on income tax contributions.
No contributions? No pension, no JSA etc
It effectively was when NI was set up in 1911.
They would be a vast administrative cost trying to work out contributions for pensions and JSA from income tax when it also funds so much else
No, it was never hypothecated, not even in 1911.
It is tax and spend. Be far cheaper to have one tax and make it truly contributions-based on that one tax? Or do you oppose contributions-based reforms?
There would be zero administrative cost to work out contributions for pension and JSA from income tax, just set a threshold that has to be met to earn the contribution - just as already happens today with NI.
In 1911 National Insurance was only used for state pensions, unemployment benefit and some health costs.
Income tax is a tax not an insurance there would be huge admin costs to work out what funds pensions and JSA from it given it also has to fund defence, the police, transport, customs, courts etc unlike ringfenced NI
The fundamental problem is that the National Insurance Fund was never actually funded. Instead of creating an endowment which could grow every year and allow a genuine insurance policy for Social Security, the various governments of the day simply raided the National Insurance monies to fund current expenditure. Instead of creating an asset, the UK has created a massive, open ended liability.
In the end private pensions have plugged a bit of the gap, but government began to tax those far more aggressively, while stupidly not capping ISAs. So unfunded pension liabilities are now degrading UK credit ratings with every passing year. Sooner or later national state pensions will probably have to be replaced by personal pensions accounts. A major and difficult change is coming and the simplistic answers of our more Fash friends will only add to the pressure.
The switch from unfunded to funded pensions requires double payment for several decades, so not likely to happen.
The rise in gilt rates is however very good for private savers and those with private pensions. As the charity that I am trustee for has investments of over £12 million we are doing well.
I note too that far from a buyers strike the recent Treasury gilt sale was 3 times oversubscribed.
A long term plan would be to build up a wealth fund and use the investment income to contribute toward pension costs, like the Norwegians did. Didn't Labour propose to create some sort of such fund during or before the GE?
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
The issue for me is contradictory declarations: he has told HMRC that Hove is her principal residence (stamp duty) as well as telling Tameside Council that it’s Manchester (council tax)
principal residence doesn't mean anything for council tax purposes
I don’t know how the UK rules work on this but could someone explain why this is the case? I’m presuming there is a good reason?
Surely you declare your principal residence for tax purposes, where you live for tax purposes, this would then be declared to the council for purposes of council tax. I would also imagine this is the same address for your employer and for your health records and so on.
If when you buy a new property you want to change your main residence to the new property why do you not have to also inform the council that this is now your main residence.
What are the rules with driving licences? Do they have to be addressed to your main residence, and does your car insurance? Don’t you have to inform the DVLA and insurers if you change your residence?
It seems utterly odd that you can claim to different official bodies different information.
But if changes happen, then all those operate to different times and different schedules and would never quite coincide. Just pick whatever moment is best to smear one's unfavoured Labour politician.
Another one with (potentially in this case) a job that may not allow them to take political positions.
There was Andrew Kilburn, also of Durham Council, who worked for the Council. And then there's the list of "personal reasons", which could be anything. The one-per-week run rate is still about right.
WTF happened to Nigel Farage's world-class vetting system?
If quotes like this really are from the gentleman involved (and that's still not certain), it feels like a meeting-without-biscuits issue at the very least;
Another post reads: “97% of asylum seekers are lying about persecution in their home countries and the other 3% have been credible to the point of being believable. Source: me. Guess what job I do.”
I think you mean meeting without biscuits, coffee or chair….
Fair play to @AngelaRayner on legally avoiding tax, she's a woman of the people for doing so. If you think you wouldn't do it if you could you're a liar.
It rankles with some because of hypocrasy. Just as a Labour minister railing against Grammar schools and private schools and then choosing the latter for their kids does. Labour is all about holier than thou. They define the Tories as scum, morally bankrupt and portray themselves as morally pure. And then do this.
It’s probably all above board. It’s all very tax efficient. But it strips another layer of moral purity from Rayner (if she had any left).
Income tax funds the majority of departments, trying to identify how much each person had contributed in it and allocating a set percentage for that to the state pension or JSA would be vastly more expensive to administer than having NI ringfenced only for the state pension or JSA.
I see you edited this in so I never originally responded to it, but this is completely backwards.
Trying to identify how much anyone has contributed [in income tax] would cost nothing - HMRC already tracks this. You can log on to HMRC and see that quite easily: https://www.gov.uk/check-income-tax-current-year
But if you want to check NI you need to log on to a different system and check elsewhere.
So there'd be no issues saying that a threshold of having paid income tax in a year is the requirement to get pension and other contributions instead of NI.
Both already go into the same pot and spending comes out of the same pot already. There's no hypothecation already. So having it be unified rather having multiple systems would be cheaper, what is vastly more expensive is duplicating work unnecessarily that could be axed with a single system that is used for contributions.
Income Tax as I already said funds almost every government department, so not only would you have to identify it you would then have to break down the percentage of it for each taxpayer that should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA etc.
Whereas NI could automatically just be ringfenced solely for JSA and state pensions
You wouldn't have to break it down, since its already not ringfenced.
NI isn't ringfenced today.
You are pretending NI is something that its not.
It would be ringfenced and hypothecated under my plan
But it never has been.
Be far cheaper and easier to get rid of NI, and create a truly contributory system based on income tax contributions.
No contributions? No pension, no JSA etc
It effectively was when NI was set up in 1911.
They would be a vast administrative cost trying to work out contributions for pensions and JSA from income tax when it also funds so much else
No, it was never hypothecated, not even in 1911.
It is tax and spend. Be far cheaper to have one tax and make it truly contributions-based on that one tax? Or do you oppose contributions-based reforms?
There would be zero administrative cost to work out contributions for pension and JSA from income tax, just set a threshold that has to be met to earn the contribution - just as already happens today with NI.
In 1911 National Insurance was only used for state pensions, unemployment benefit and some health costs.
Income tax is a tax not an insurance there would be huge admin costs to work out what funds pensions and JSA from it given it also has to fund defence, the police, transport, customs, courts etc unlike ringfenced NI
The fundamental problem is that the National Insurance Fund was never actually funded. Instead of creating an endowment which could grow every year and allow a genuine insurance policy for Social Security, the various governments of the day simply raided the National Insurance monies to fund current expenditure. Instead of creating an asset, the UK has created a massive, open ended liability.
In the end private pensions have plugged a bit of the gap, but government began to tax those far more aggressively, while stupidly not capping ISAs. So unfunded pension liabilities are now degrading UK credit ratings with every passing year. Sooner or later national state pensions will probably have to be replaced by personal pensions accounts. A major and difficult change is coming and the simplistic answers of our more Fash friends will only add to the pressure.
The switch from unfunded to funded pensions requires double payment for several decades, so not likely to happen.
The rise in gilt rates is however very good for private savers and those with private pensions. As the charity that I am trustee for has investments of over £12 million we are doing well.
I note too that far from a buyers strike the recent Treasury gilt sale was 3 times oversubscribed.
A long term plan would be to build up a wealth fund and use the investment income to contribute toward pension costs, like the Norwegians did. Didn't Labour propose to create some sort of such fund during or before the GE?
The slight problem(s) with that are
1) the expenditure, year on year to build such a fund. 2) getting governments not to raid it. 3) getting governments not to try and direct its investment.
The Norwegian fund is culturally interesting.
The Norwegian government of the time consulted experts on economics. And we’re told that they would have a massive version of the Resource Curse, if they spent the money - The Norwegians had more oil and gas than the UK and a tiny economy and small population.
The Norwegian government implemented the plan recommended by the experts.
Everyone (pretty much) in Norwegian politics, from hard left to hard right agreed with decision(s). So the fund endured.
Anywhere else, it would have been raided into deficit long ago.
Fair play to @AngelaRayner on legally avoiding tax, she's a woman of the people for doing so. If you think you wouldn't do it if you could you're a liar.
It rankles with some because of hypocrasy. Just as a Labour minister railing against Grammar schools and private schools and then choosing the latter for their kids does. Labour is all about holier than thou. They define the Tories as scum, morally bankrupt and portray themselves as morally pure. And then do this.
It’s probably all above board. It’s all very tax efficient. But it strips another layer of moral purity from Rayner (if she had any left).
The current government protested in opposition. They claimed that they would be pure as the driven snow.
Now they (and supporters) are upset that “legally correct” isn’t seen as “pure as driven snow”
Comments
It's the Supreme Court or his main economic policy is gone.
Or of course he just dispenses once and for all with this tedious rule of law stuff, as we all know he'd love to.
(The exception wrt tariffs is that they are temporary, and only in the event of economic emergency. The great irony is that Trump's claim that the economy has never been better rather contradicts the 'economic emergency' argument.)
Grace Dean"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l74nq2pldo
The most difficult to predict question in politics right now, is who/what is the beneficiary if the same pattern applies to Farage. One or both of the old brands recover? Or something entirely new
Another one where we can't tell how it works in the particular circumstances - but another factor in the mix.
"People of the great nations of Britain & Ireland, rally NOW to save your beautiful countries! 🇬🇧🇮🇪
It’s now or never. Fight, fight, fight! ⚔️
Soon, it will be too late."
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1961481368157777991
As for why I said that: I am taking about protestors, and have you seen the following?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/26/two-in-five-arrested-for-last-summers-uk-riots-had-been-reported-for-domestic-abuse
They're your heroes.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36496682/mums-fury-epping-migrant-hotel-ruling-overturned/
ps yes you are a massive woke lefty :-)
A towering inferno could be seen rising from the refinery, one of the largest in southern Russia."
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1961586591131926951
https://x.com/NickNehamas/status/1961507992857157861
Of course, in Red Storm Rising, the Red army eventually revolted against the politicians, bringing an end to the war.
It was possible, but only with a fairly select network of B&Bs at around £8 per night.
But no one is going to care about stories in the Telegraph who clearly have it out for our Ange. And the party management headache it would cause is also an issue.
It's about entitlement and expectation, and the Bus Company reaction is funny. They don't give a damn about customer service when push comes really to shove. These are the same people who spent £££ fighting a legal action to Supreme Court level to avoid their drivers having a clear responsibility to make Karen (M or F) remove her pushchair from the wheelchair space so that a wheelchair user could get on the bus; they would prefer to leave the person behind.
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/firstgroup-plc-v-paulley
This is funny, though:
When Rachel asks the passenger to turn his phone down because it's distracting her, he calls her "the most miserable bus driver I have come across in my entire life" and gets off the bus in a huff.
The strongest I have had was from the chap who had entirely blocked the ability of mobility aid users to enter the local hospital, so they all had to go back 100m down the pavement, get off at the pedestrian crossing at the bottom, and wheel their way 100m back up the main drive with it's 3-4000 vehicles movements per day.
That was "get a life you fucking prick". It was a late 20s man in his 10+ years' old Mercedes, presumably with a lack of equipment, and there was a free parking space about 20m further away from the entrance. It had been there about half an hour. It was just not thinking beyond the end of his bonnet, and "as close as possibel" to deliver a family member for a routine appointent.
Can any PBers name them (without Googling) before I go to bed?
(That means you have about 20 minutes.)
Maybe MI
I was completely wrong in my initial thinking - I thought it might be a state in the New England area where lots of small states cluster together - but @rkrkrk put me right.
This was posted in February
rottenborough
February 7
"Brian Stelter posted a December 9, 2017, quote from the New York Times:
"Before taking office, Mr. Trump told top aides to think of each presidential day as an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals."
Stelter wrote: “I think about this quote a lot.” "
Heather Richardson email - 'Letters from an American'
Now, I don't want to get anybody's hopes up, but, DementiaDon had no public events on Thursday. Or Friday. He has none scheduled so far this weekend...
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1961657820736016417
https://x.com/cmclymer/status/1961651457628787148
EDIT: You can (just) get 10/1 on him leaving office in 2025
And then there's one state where you can travel south from it to six separate states (which is also a record). Anyone want to guess which that one is?
Are you asking AI - I make one of them Nine.
It's Arkansas.
Story rumbles through each stage and is either low level damaging as the public don’t look at the detail but just think more MPs taking the piss or it results in tearful statement and promise to pay the difference and learn lessons or thirdly they have actually broken the rules so have to be punished with loss of ministerial job/removal of whip.
The more it’s on the BBC the more people just hear that “the Housing Minister might have played the tax rules to save £40k for another house.” It’s not remotely a good look.
In any case, there's no chance of an inquiry because its not that complicated an issue. If she has done something dodgy, and the story keeps rumbling, Starmer will sack her. He's not going to want to hold an inquiry knowing that it will find she has broken the rules.
https://x.com/thecourieruk/status/1961452543868797030?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
"The final and most compelling route reaches 32,040km (19,910 miles) and goes from Sonmiani, near the port of Karachi in Pakistan, across the Arabian Sea, around both the bottom of South Africa and the bottom of Argentina and Chile, eventually landing in the Karingshy District of East Russia."
https://www.seawaylogistics.co.uk/blog/what-is-the-longest-straight-line-sea-route#:~:text=The final and most compelling,Karingshy District of East Russia.
"Can I Break The Record For Most US States Cycled In 24 Hours?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv4EasNs4s0
TL;DW: it does not end well.
The current record is ten states.
I think she is pretty safe, but it doesn't look good if she wants to be next leader.
"THE man who filmed a viral incident in Dundee in which a schoolgirl allegedly brandished a knife and axe has spoken out amid a rush of far-right misinformation."
""A 12-year-old girl has been charged with being in possession of offensive weapons. She will be referred to the relevant authorities and our enquiries are ongoing."
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25424288.dundee-migrant-centre-far-right-misinformation-row-speaks/
It's a good job we don't have a far-right poster who tells us all to seek out the true story, but who is too frit to tell us the story himself....
Fair play to @AngelaRayner on legally avoiding tax, she's a woman of the people for doing so. If you think you wouldn't do it if you could you're a liar.
In the end private pensions have plugged a bit of the gap, but government began to tax those far more aggressively, while stupidly not capping ISAs. So unfunded pension liabilities are now degrading UK credit ratings with every passing year. Sooner or later national state pensions will probably have to be replaced by personal pensions accounts. A major and difficult change is coming and the simplistic answers of our more Fash friends will only add to the pressure.
It's been amusing watching people get confused about what to think about this one.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/30/reform-uk-councillor-suspended-from-job-at-home-office-processing-asylum-claims
The Tories accept she hasn’t broken any laws so not sure why she’d have broken the ministerial code .
https://x.com/Number10cat/status/1961523792557015183?t=fAD6oo1q3hXdpjrlXBnkXw&s=19
Obvious, but well put.
The rise in gilt rates is however very good for private savers and those with private pensions. As the charity that I am trustee for has investments of over £12 million we are doing well.
I note too that far from a buyers strike the recent Treasury gilt sale was 3 times oversubscribed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g6k479r71o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgyk7ry8rdo
There was Andrew Kilburn, also of Durham Council, who worked for the Council. And then there's the list of "personal reasons", which could be anything. The one-per-week run rate is still about right.
WTF happened to Nigel Farage's world-class vetting system?
"I look forward to continuing work with residents, community groups and ward councillors, to ensure voices of the people are heard and acted upon - without compromise."
One of the key divisions in politics is between those who accept compromise and those who don't. Doesn't matter whether that compromise is with other people, nations or physical/mathematical reality.
After all, Councillor Jenkins is saying exactly the same thing as the Epping Hotel Protestors, but I suspect with a very different destination in mind.
Another post reads: “97% of asylum seekers are lying about persecution in their home countries and the other 3% have been credible to the point of being believable. Source: me. Guess what job I do.”
In May this year the LEJOG and back again record was done in 5 days, 11 hours and 14 minutes by Sarah Ruggins, which beat the womens' record by 5 days, and the all-comers' record by nearly 7 hours.
That's a reduction of more than 5%, which is a hell of a cut even given how specialist it is as a record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land's_End_to_John_o'_Groats
Really.
"Social care bills are killing us, and there's nothing we can do about them. Find any discretionary spending you can and cut it."
Surely you declare your principal residence for tax purposes, where you live for tax purposes, this would then be declared to the council for purposes of council tax. I would also imagine this is the same address for your employer and for your health records and so on.
If when you buy a new property you want to change your main residence to the new property why do you not have to also inform the council that this is now your main residence.
What are the rules with driving licences? Do they have to be addressed to your main residence, and does your car insurance? Don’t you have to inform the DVLA and insurers if you change your residence?
It seems utterly odd that you can claim to different official bodies different information.
NEW THREAD
Pity his ex doesn't have the same scruples as Ravey does.
(censored - Ed).
It’s probably all above board. It’s all very tax efficient. But it strips another layer of moral purity from Rayner (if she had any left).
1) the expenditure, year on year to build such a fund.
2) getting governments not to raid it.
3) getting governments not to try and direct its investment.
The Norwegian fund is culturally interesting.
The Norwegian government of the time consulted experts on economics. And we’re told that they would have a massive version of the Resource Curse, if they spent the money - The Norwegians had more oil and gas than the UK and a tiny economy and small population.
The Norwegian government implemented the plan recommended by the experts.
Everyone (pretty much) in Norwegian politics, from hard left to hard right agreed with decision(s). So the fund endured.
Anywhere else, it would have been raided into deficit long ago.
Now they (and supporters) are upset that “legally correct” isn’t seen as “pure as driven snow”