Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
An interesting take on small boat arrivals from a researcher into what's causing people to come here, arguing that Brexit is one of the drivers. It really is the gift that keeps on giving.
The media don’t want to talk about it but it’s clearly had an impact and it’s so obvious by just looking at the figures post Brexit .
Pre Brexit there were no boats but illegal crossings by HGVs
This was stopped, and by 2018 small boats crossings started with 299 and 599 the following year
In the years from 2020 the crossings surged along with the explosion in migration into Europe via Italy
This is not, as some would portray, a brexit issue but a more recent problem dominating governments around the globe
Migration observatory says the specific post-brexit issue is the withdrawal from EU databases. Previously claimants refused elsewhere in the EU would be flagged, now the UK is known to be a second opportunity to claim asylum.
I live in the Highgate ward of the London Borough of Camden. We have 1 Green and 2 Labour councillors. We abut the Highgate ward of the London Borough of Haringey, which has 3 LibDem councillors. We are demographically similar wards, although the Camden ward has more social housing, particularly around what's called Highgate New Town.
I think the sort of people who are voting Green in the Camden ward and the sort of people who are voting LibDem in the Haringey ward are pretty similar. The difference is in how active different local parties are. The party that puts in the work has won at council level. (I suspect many of these voters vote Labour at general elections and, given a choice between Farage or Starmer in No 10 in 2029, will vote Starmer.)
That doesn't mean that all Green supporters and all LibDem supporters are interchangeable, by any means, but there is overlap. More in some places than others.
Certainly seems like that around here. Although sometimes there doesn't seem there's any love lost at the top of the local parties.
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
Their conference was like warm cocoa or a cuddle with a kitten. There was a sense of something better, older, more treasured and revered laced with prosperity, destiny and hope. I haven't stopped smiling since. It was a religious experience.
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
I've never worked out what he's trying to do with his voice. I guess print is safer.
Look the Geordies and Mackems are one people, they share the same area code.
Because BT ran out of them so couldn't do anything else.
Also remember Tyne and Wear was founded in 1974 abandoned in 1986 and those 12 years were so traumatic for those south of the Tyne that they vetoed doing anything with Newcastle Council until 2023 when they were bribed into working with Newcastle...
Something folks are missing here: this raid wasn’t about “illegals taking American jobs.” It was about ICE storming the Hyundai–LG battery plant in Georgia, part of a $7.6B Metaplant project that isn’t even operational yet.
They dragged out more than 300 South Korean engineers and specialists. People flown in to help stand the place up so it could eventually employ thousands of Georgians/Americans.
This plant wasn’t scheduled to start running until late 2025 or early 2026. These workers weren’t taking jobs; they were building the factory that would create them... https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/1964729036724420865
The MAGA replies to this are, to put it politely, unhinged.
Have a work trip to US coming up. Definitely makes me nervous!
How the f##k does that get from design to production....
Probably the same reason a version of Microsoft Encarta in the early 1990s contained a lot of anti-PRC content: MS had got a company in Taiwan to do the translations...
I saw that. I reckon subtle sabotage. It's quite well done in a way that doesn't scream 'wrong' at you straight away e.g. the bridges and coastline are not shown.
An interesting take on small boat arrivals from a researcher into what's causing people to come here, arguing that Brexit is one of the drivers. It really is the gift that keeps on giving.
The point about not being able to immediately refuse the claim causing an increase is probably true. The Dublin agreement argument is silly as usual given its failure.
However, if were still in the EU, we would have had to become part of the EUs new migrant-sharing quota system, the increase from which would have probably outweighed any advantage from the above.
How the f##k does that get from design to production....
Probably the same reason a version of Microsoft Encarta in the early 1990s contained a lot of anti-PRC content: MS had got a company in Taiwan to do the translations...
But the Great North run is organised by local people, loads of eyes must have seen the design and signed it off. Bit different to a huge encyclopedia.
How the f##k does that get from design to production....
Very easily. Everyone is too busy and assumes someone else is checking. Also needs a particular sort of detailed visual memory. Been there before when some young design person picks an unsuitable primary image for want of knowledge and puts it in. Fortunately I spotted it, being the right sort of nerd. In this case, the designer obvs can't tell the difference between Northern cities. Which is hardly an unknown form of prosopagnosia.
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
Their conference was like warm cocoa or a cuddle with a kitten. There was a sense of something better, older, more treasured and revered laced with prosperity, destiny and hope. I haven't stopped smiling since. It was a religious experience.
I initially read that as 'proper dentistry and hope'. Which would also be a good selling point.
An interesting take on small boat arrivals from a researcher into what's causing people to come here, arguing that Brexit is one of the drivers. It really is the gift that keeps on giving.
The media don’t want to talk about it but it’s clearly had an impact and it’s so obvious by just looking at the figures post Brexit .
It is noticeable that these pieces on the "why" of the migrants find migrants with reasons to reinforce the thesis of the writer. As a result, I think that such pieces are plurals of anecdotes.
I've seen very little on scientific surveys of the mixture of reasons that people come here.
Are Migration Observatory likely to be looking to reinforce a thesis in that manner?
While this is, for now, just commentary, they do tend to publish their workings.
Walsh said, that for people like this, if the UK was still in the EU their chances of being granted asylum here would be “much diminished”. He said:
"In those circumstances, typically, flagged upon the system, the UK government would be able to issue a speedy refuse refusal and try and effect removal. As it is, people arrive, we don’t have that record, so we don’t know who they are. And also, even if we were [in that database], we wouldn’t be able to return them, because we’re no longer party to that Dublin system that allowed for the transfer of asylum seekers back to countries of first entry..."
And it's also, on the face of it, a credible thesis.
Sky reported that Starmer wanted to move Miliband to housing and it was strongly repudiated by Miliband
That would confirm rumours Starmer and Reeves are looking to review the policies on climate change, but also how weak he is as PM when he cannot move a minister that is popular with the membership
I have no doubt Starmer and Reeves are moving to the right not least because they have to, and I expect both union and worker rights legislation, promoted by Rayner, to be put on ice in an attempt to boost businesses and of course growth
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
I've never worked out what he's trying to do with his voice. I guess print is safer.
Chris Mason needs to stop talking "in self-emphasising quotes". Because "that ", is what could make the difference in British politics.
And "that", is what allies of Keir Starmer will be asking tonight. "Can he do it" ? "That" ,is what "the elecorate, and the Labour party, will soon be finding out. Back to you in the studio, Chris.
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
Their conference was like warm cocoa or a cuddle with a kitten. There was a sense of something better, older, more treasured and revered laced with prosperity, destiny and hope. I haven't stopped smiling since. It was a religious experience.
I saw that. I reckon subtle sabotage. It's quite well done in a way that doesn't scream 'wrong' at you straight away e.g. the bridges and coastline are not shown.
I reckon it’s a Liverpool fan behind this because of the shithousery Newcastle did over freeing Alexander Isak.
Gen Z are flocking to the National Trust to relieve climate anxiety and get away from social media.
The conservation charity has seen a surge in popularity among young people, with membership among 18 to 25-year-olds rising by 35 per cent in the year to March. Young membership numbers have increased by a further 16 per cent since the start of March, according to its annual report.
Sky reported that Starmer wanted to move Miliband to housing and it was strongly repudiated by Miliband
That would confirm rumours Starmer and Reeves are looking to review the policies on climate change, but also how weak he is as PM when he cannot move a minister that is popular with the membership
I have no doubt Starmer and Reeves are moving to the right not least because they have to, and I expect both union and worker rights legislation, promoted by Rayner, to be put on ice in an attempt to boost businesses and of course growth
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
Their conference was like warm cocoa or a cuddle with a kitten. There was a sense of something better, older, more treasured and revered laced with prosperity, destiny and hope. I haven't stopped smiling since. It was a religious experience.
I initially read that as 'proper dentistry and hope'. Which would also be a good selling point.
Is there any value in it? I've had a nibble on Lisa Nandy (4.4) and Rosena Allin-Khan (8.3).
There was. Laying Lammy was/is I think free money.
There seems to be some backing for Nandy too - she's obviously done pretty well in past elections, but all that past baggage isn't a plus in my view. Seems a lay too.
Alin-Khan is interesting - someone seems to have managed to get very lucky in 12p at 1000-1. Thornberry too might do well
I'm unsure about whether Burnham could run - seems he's decided not to even if he can though.
It could be the most exciting betting market of the year - admittedly a very poor betting year.
I still fondly recall Hattie Harman's great race victory - a bit of a coup for me betting-wise.
Needs to be an MP which rules out Andy Burnham. I might have considered Dawn Butler, who is a better walker-and-talker than Robert Jenrick but she is not even quoted.
S Korean media united in condemning the ICE raids on one of their American factories:
Raphael Rashid @koryodynasty · 8h 4/ Chosun calls the situation "bewildering" and emphasises the contradiction: Trump pressures Korean companies to invest while simultaneously arresting their workers. The editorial questions whether American investment promises survive across different administrations.
3/ Chosun Ilbo (flagship conservative): Scathing language calling this a "merciless arrest operation" that represents something "that cannot happen between allies" and a "breach of trust." Notes Trump personally thanked Hyundai's chairman just months ago.
Something folks are missing here: this raid wasn’t about “illegals taking American jobs.” It was about ICE storming the Hyundai–LG battery plant in Georgia, part of a $7.6B Metaplant project that isn’t even operational yet.
They dragged out more than 300 South Korean engineers and specialists. People flown in to help stand the place up so it could eventually employ thousands of Georgians/Americans.
This plant wasn’t scheduled to start running until late 2025 or early 2026. These workers weren’t taking jobs; they were building the factory that would create them... https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/1964729036724420865
The MAGA replies to this are, to put it politely, unhinged.
Have a work trip to US coming up. Definitely makes me nervous!
Make sure your visa is appropriate and in order.
The specific issue here is that the US rations temporary work visas in this category, and while places like Singapore have an annual allocation, S Korea doesn't, despite repeated requests.
Which makes getting an advanced manufacturing plant up and running, without bending the law, virtually impossible.
Usually, a blind eye has been turned, for everyone's benefit. But here, a local MAGA candidate for office raised a stink with ICE, which prompted the raid.
Judging by Trump's comments in the last day or so, some, even in this administration, recognise that this isn't smart.
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
I've never worked out what he's trying to do with his voice. I guess print is safer.
Chris Mason needs to stop talking "in quotes". Because "that ", is what could make the difference in British politics.
And "that", is what allies of Keir Starmer will be asking tonight. "Can he do it" ? "That" ,is what "the elecorate, and the Labour party, will soon be telling us. Back to you, Chris.
He seems to have picked up all the worst points that Kuensberg latterly did. I think at one time she was quite good, but Mason has yet to make the lowliest of worthwhile observations in my book.
I think there is a tipping point with Reform where if enough people become aware of the crazy, it will hit support. Despite all the comparisons the UK is not quite the states yet where everything is excused dependant on one’s overall worldview (though it is skating perilously close to the edge).
But I’d just let these things feed into general public discourse through osmosis: I wouldn’t, as a political party, go particularly hard on it. Just highlight it and leave it there for people to realise the nuttiness.
There multiple ways in which Reform don't form/lead the next government. The 60-65% who really don't want this need to work on them.
Being found out as nasty natured charlatans and chancers who have policies that are both contradictory and crazy, with huge silences over every really hard questions and little talent would be a start.
The next would be for other parties (the Tories have a big choice here, and look like making the wrong one) to get a lot better at centrist politics and for government to start getting better at doing its job so that tactical voting by the 60% who don't want Reform can be credible and effective.
The Tory choice? Is to say that they would rather be in coalition with Labour than with Reform.
But they wouldn't, would they? Really? Deep down? And anyways. That would lead to a peeling off of half of their current support. Leaving them in single figures.
That all depends on what sort of Tory party they want to be. Of course they would lose support of they went 'we are not Reform, we are One Nation Tories, we are not unpleasant English nationalists'. But that's because they have already lost their centrist One Nation heartland voters. Look at 2024, look at the polls.
No-one wants to vote Tory at the moment because they are useless, unprincipled, incoherent and Reformlite.
The way back is not populism, Farage will always beat them there, but articulating in principle and policy what Toryism stands for and how it works, here and now.
Have they? Nearly half the current Tory vote were Remainers according to Yougov, the current Tory Party is more One Nation than it was after 2019 certainly, most of the hardest Leavers are now in Reform. Hence Cleverly is likely to replace Kemi if she is removed rather than Jenrick
No doubt this is true, but the numbers are derisory. In a normal world with a normal Tory party and Labour being as sub optimal as they are the Tories should be over double their current polling - more like 45% - and appealing to those who want sound finance, a good climate for private enterprise and a sane welfare state. And the Tories would have had, since 2016 a clearly directed policy towards the post-Brexit world, prepared well in advance of the referendum.
Sky reported that Starmer wanted to move Miliband to housing and it was strongly repudiated by Miliband
That would confirm rumours Starmer and Reeves are looking to review the policies on climate change, but also how weak he is as PM when he cannot move a minister that is popular with the membership
I have no doubt Starmer and Reeves are moving to the right not least because they have to, and I expect both union and worker rights legislation, promoted by Rayner, to be put on ice in an attempt to boost businesses and of course growth
In power, but not in control.
I think Labour need to go for Rosena Allin Khan as deputy then they are covered in those crucial 'is anyone here a doctor, or a toolmakers son?' crises
Is there any value in it? I've had a nibble on Lisa Nandy (4.4) and Rosena Allin-Khan (8.3).
There was. Laying Lammy was/is I think free money.
There seems to be some backing for Nandy too - she's obviously done pretty well in past elections, but all that past baggage isn't a plus in my view. Seems a lay too.
Alin-Khan is interesting - someone seems to have managed to get very lucky in 12p at 1000-1. Thornberry too might do well
I'm unsure about whether Burnham could run - seems he's decided not to even if he can though.
It could be the most exciting betting market of the year - admittedly a very poor betting year.
I still fondly recall Hattie Harman's great race victory - a bit of a coup for me betting-wise.
Needs to be an MP which rules out Andy Burnham. I might have considered Dawn Butler, who is a better walker-and-talker than Robert Jenrick but she is not even quoted.
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a link that says it has to be an MP. I see MPs need to support the candidate, but have managed to miss 'has to be an MP'
Good morning from the Douro river and a sunny Portugal. Have been visiting the country one and off during the last decade. It’s clear from the state of some of the properties here, some inward investment from immigrants would help boost the economy but …
The golden visas I understand have been cancelled due to too much rich immigration.
Meanwhile a hundred miles north in Galicia where I have family, Ryanair have withdrawn their aircraft due to dropping demand as tourists were less welcome than before.
So it seems populist politics is all about cakes even though it’s not necessarily in the best interests of the people there.
From a betting perspective best not to bet logically. Think like a NIMBY.
I am pretty sure the Golden Visa (and similar schemes) for Portugal are still open, but they did place restrictions on where you could invest your money e.g. You can't just buy yourself a villa in the Algarve and qualify as so many Brits, Irish, Russian, Chinese, etc, did.
The problem with Portugal is long standing one. Everything happens so slowly that for instance the Golden Visa scheme has a massive backlog because they process everything at a snails pace. There are people desperate to give them millions and yet it still takes months / years to sort it and just met with a shrug.
It isn't just the government that is massively inefficient, about 5 companies basically run everything and they operate as mono / duo - polies. So everything gets done at "their" pace and if you complain too much you are put on the naughty list and you are buggered.
It isn't just foreigners who suffer this, it is the Portuguese themselves. Get them talking about stuff like construction or having a phone line put in, and its makes the 60/70s in the UK sound like utopia.
There are generally 2 separate things to consider with these potential escape-the-hellhole-of-the-UK destinations: - the legal right to reside, rather than merely visit, which can be gained via several routes including but not limited to "golden visas" for substantial investment. Advisers incentivised by property or other investment commissions tend not to highlight the non-investment routes; - the fact of tax residence, which is normally just based on the fact of spending >x days in the country but can also be based on number of ties to the country, having a permanent place to stay, etc.
For Portugal, the big change in the last year or so is withdrawal of the original NHR tax scheme. Under NHR 1.0, pretty much anyone new to Portugal could pay Portuguese income tax rates only on Portuguese income, with 0% or very low rates for UK or other foreign income.
There's an NHR 2.0 but it's a lot narrower in scope.
(Also, as I'm sure many know, tax residence ends up being less about trying to make sure you ARE tax resident in the new country and more about trying to make sure you AREN'T tax resident in the UK).
Habib is applying to the EC and chucking 100 grand of his own cash in now Advance UK has reached 30,000 paid up members. Presumably we will start seeing Advance candidates in elections soon
Maybe Chris Mason can do an article about them !
I've never worked out what he's trying to do with his voice. I guess print is safer.
Chris Mason needs to stop talking "in quotes". Because "that ", is what could make the difference in British politics.
And "that", is what allies of Keir Starmer will be asking tonight. "Can he do it" ? "That" ,is what "the elecorate, and the Labour party, will soon be telling us. Back to you, Chris.
He seems to have picked up all the worst points that Kuensberg latterly did. I think at one time she was quite good, but Mason has yet to make the lowliest of worthwhile observations in my book.
I think he's at his best when he finds quirky observations, which he can sometimes interesringly do, and avoids the over-emphasis of "that".
Good morning from the Douro river and a sunny Portugal. Have been visiting the country one and off during the last decade. It’s clear from the state of some of the properties here, some inward investment from immigrants would help boost the economy but …
The golden visas I understand have been cancelled due to too much rich immigration.
Meanwhile a hundred miles north in Galicia where I have family, Ryanair have withdrawn their aircraft due to dropping demand as tourists were less welcome than before.
So it seems populist politics is all about cakes even though it’s not necessarily in the best interests of the people there.
From a betting perspective best not to bet logically. Think like a NIMBY.
I am pretty sure the Golden Visa (and similar schemes) for Portugal are still open, but they did place restrictions on where you could invest your money e.g. You can't just buy yourself a villa in the Algarve and qualify as so many Brits, Irish, Russian, Chinese, etc, did.
The problem with Portugal is long standing one. Everything happens so slowly that for instance the Golden Visa scheme has a massive backlog because they process everything at a snails pace. There are people desperate to give them millions and yet it still takes months / years to sort it and just met with a shrug.
It isn't just the government that is massively inefficient, about 5 companies basically run everything and they operate as mono / duo - polies. So everything gets done at "their" pace and if you complain too much you are put on the naughty list and you are buggered.
It isn't just foreigners who suffer this, it is the Portuguese themselves. Get them talking about stuff like construction or having a phone line put in, and its makes the 60/70s in the UK sound like utopia.
There are generally 2 separate things to consider with these potential escape-the-hellhole-of-the-UK destinations: - the legal right to reside, rather than merely visit, which can be gained via several routes including but not limited to "golden visas" for substantial investment. Advisers incentivised by property or other investment commissions tend not to highlight the non-investment routes; - the fact of tax residence, which is normally just based on the fact of spending >x days in the country but can also be based on number of ties to the country, having a permanent place to stay, etc.
For Portugal, the big change in the last year or so is withdrawal of the original NHR tax scheme. Under NHR 1.0, pretty much anyone new to Portugal could pay Portuguese income tax rates only on Portuguese income, with 0% or very low rates for UK or other foreign income.
There's an NHR 2.0 but it's a lot narrower in scope.
(Also, as I'm sure many know, tax residence ends up being less about trying to make sure you ARE tax resident in the new country and more about trying to make sure you AREN'T tax resident in the UK).
*could - for up to 10 years - pay Portuguese income tax rates only on Portuguese income, with 0% or very low rates for UK or other foreign income
On Zack Polanski, he is impressively well presented but becomes questionable once the surface is scratched. Imo he's less questionable than the Reformista bigwigs, because he at least has principles rather than nihilism.
On Hypnoboobs (which is a good quip) I not sure whether to look down for on him or his customers more. He was 30, and Harley Street is an epicentre of both quackery and the enablement of criminality - did not Mohammed Al Fayed have his victims pre-inspected there?
Perhaps he should have used blue pyramids?
I'm excited by the reference to blue pyramids, which I'm choosing to infer is a reference to the Great Pyramid of Stockport - which is where ZP went to school - but I don't fully understand it. So I expect my inference is wrong...?
I got onto the Stockport one last time.
This one is Sarah Ferguson in the early 1990s and a clairvoyant called Madame Vasso, where SF sat under a Blue Pyramid to be cleansed. Same sort of edgy stuff that highly intelligent or rich people swallow, to meet some sort of need.
A strange character, who betrayed Sarah Ferguson's confidences in a book - Isobel Oakeshott style.
Hoping for a Mercury nomination for Szmierek, the interviewee on that - love his album 'Service Station at the End of the Universe' to absolute bits, very rare that dance music captures me - but "if The Streets had been devised by Jarvis Cocker at his most laconic on a Hacienda club classics night in space" does it for me. And then as I was getting into it discovering that he's from Hyde as well, so supporting a proper home town lad too is just the cherry on top.
I slightly doubt, even if nominated, that he'll win, even though it's a radically different genre from English Teacher, the album shares the Northern wordiness, plus he's been dating Lily Fontaine, so there's a Rock Family Trees thing going on.
Plus the occasional call out that he is derivative of The Streets - I really don't quite see it myself, the overall feel is very, very different and I can't think of any songs that would be readily interchangeable across between 'Service Station...' and 'Original Pirate Material' for example. They just sit, several parsecs from each other, in a relatively uncrowded bit of sky.
Is there any value in it? I've had a nibble on Lisa Nandy (4.4) and Rosena Allin-Khan (8.3).
There was. Laying Lammy was/is I think free money.
There seems to be some backing for Nandy too - she's obviously done pretty well in past elections, but all that past baggage isn't a plus in my view. Seems a lay too.
Alin-Khan is interesting - someone seems to have managed to get very lucky in 12p at 1000-1. Thornberry too might do well
I'm unsure about whether Burnham could run - seems he's decided not to even if he can though.
It could be the most exciting betting market of the year - admittedly a very poor betting year.
I still fondly recall Hattie Harman's great race victory - a bit of a coup for me betting-wise.
Needs to be an MP which rules out Andy Burnham. I might have considered Dawn Butler, who is a better walker-and-talker than Robert Jenrick but she is not even quoted.
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a link that says it has to be an MP. I see MPs need to support the candidate, but have managed to miss 'has to be an MP'
Is there any value in it? I've had a nibble on Lisa Nandy (4.4) and Rosena Allin-Khan (8.3).
There was. Laying Lammy was/is I think free money.
There seems to be some backing for Nandy too - she's obviously done pretty well in past elections, but all that past baggage isn't a plus in my view. Seems a lay too.
Alin-Khan is interesting - someone seems to have managed to get very lucky in 12p at 1000-1. Thornberry too might do well
I'm unsure about whether Burnham could run - seems he's decided not to even if he can though.
It could be the most exciting betting market of the year - admittedly a very poor betting year.
I still fondly recall Hattie Harman's great race victory - a bit of a coup for me betting-wise.
Needs to be an MP which rules out Andy Burnham. I might have considered Dawn Butler, who is a better walker-and-talker than Robert Jenrick but she is not even quoted.
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a link that says it has to be an MP. I see MPs need to support the candidate, but have managed to miss 'has to be an MP'
On Zack Polanski, he is impressively well presented but becomes questionable once the surface is scratched. Imo he's less questionable than the Reformista bigwigs, because he at least has principles rather than nihilism.
On Hypnoboobs (which is a good quip) I not sure whether to look down for on him or his customers more. He was 30, and Harley Street is an epicentre of both quackery and the enablement of criminality - did not Mohammed Al Fayed have his victims pre-inspected there?
Perhaps he should have used blue pyramids?
I'm excited by the reference to blue pyramids, which I'm choosing to infer is a reference to the Great Pyramid of Stockport - which is where ZP went to school - but I don't fully understand it. So I expect my inference is wrong...?
I got onto the Stockport one last time.
This one is Sarah Ferguson in the early 1990s and a clairvoyant called Madame Vasso, where SF sat under a Blue Pyramid to be cleansed. Same sort of edgy stuff that highly intelligent or rich people swallow, to meet some sort of need.
A strange character, who betrayed Sarah Ferguson's confidences in a book - Isobel Oakeshott style.
Hoping for a Mercury nomination for Szmierek, the interviewee on that - love his album 'Service Station at the End of the Universe's to absolute bits, very rare that dance music captures me - but "if The Streets had been devised by Jarvis Cocker at his most laconic on a Hacienda club classics night in space" does it for me. And then as I was getting into it discovering that he's from Hyde as well, so being a proper home town lad supporter too is just the cherry on top.
I slightly doubt, even if nominated, that he'll win, even though it's a radically different genre from English Teacher, it shares the Northern wordiness, plus he's been dating Lily Fontaine, so there's a Rock Family Trees thing going on.
Plus the occasional call out that he is derivative of The Streets - I really don't quite see it myself, the overall feel is very, very different and I can't think of any songs that would be interchangeable across between 'Service Station...' and 'Original Pirate Material'. They just sit, several parsecs from each other, in a relatively uncrowded bit of sky.
Aye, not normally my bag either but the local references (in another song he references Arighi Bianchi in Macclesfield) drew me in and I genuinely enjoy it musically too now.
Is there any value in it? I've had a nibble on Lisa Nandy (4.4) and Rosena Allin-Khan (8.3).
There was. Laying Lammy was/is I think free money.
There seems to be some backing for Nandy too - she's obviously done pretty well in past elections, but all that past baggage isn't a plus in my view. Seems a lay too.
Alin-Khan is interesting - someone seems to have managed to get very lucky in 12p at 1000-1. Thornberry too might do well
I'm unsure about whether Burnham could run - seems he's decided not to even if he can though.
It could be the most exciting betting market of the year - admittedly a very poor betting year.
I still fondly recall Hattie Harman's great race victory - a bit of a coup for me betting-wise.
Needs to be an MP which rules out Andy Burnham. I might have considered Dawn Butler, who is a better walker-and-talker than Robert Jenrick but she is not even quoted.
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a link that says it has to be an MP. I see MPs need to support the candidate, but have managed to miss 'has to be an MP'
Extract from HoC Library:
This paper describes the current and previous rules for the election of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. It also summarises previous contests. Rules for leadership elections are set out in Labour’s Rule Book, with Labour’s ruling national Executive Committee (NEC) responsible for setting exact timings and election procedures to be followed. Timings are affected by whether Labour is in government or not. If the Labour leader is also Prime Minister and the leadership becomes vacant for any reason, the Cabinet, in consultation with the NEC, appoints one of its members to serve as Party leader until a ballot can be organised. If Labour is in opposition and the leader’s role is vacant, the deputy leader automatically becomes Party leader, and the NEC will determine the timing of a leadership ballot. Vacancies When a vacancy arises, Labour Party leadership elections consist of two stages: Stage 1 – Nominations Candidates seeking to enter the leadership ballot must be an MP. They must be nominated by 20% of fellow Labour MPs.
An interesting take on small boat arrivals from a researcher into what's causing people to come here, arguing that Brexit is one of the drivers. It really is the gift that keeps on giving.
The media don’t want to talk about it but it’s clearly had an impact and it’s so obvious by just looking at the figures post Brexit .
It is noticeable that these pieces on the "why" of the migrants find migrants with reasons to reinforce the thesis of the writer. As a result, I think that such pieces are plurals of anecdotes.
I've seen very little on scientific surveys of the mixture of reasons that people come here.
Are Migration Observatory likely to be looking to reinforce a thesis in that manner?
While this is, for now, just commentary, they do tend to publish their workings.
Walsh said, that for people like this, if the UK was still in the EU their chances of being granted asylum here would be “much diminished”. He said:
"In those circumstances, typically, flagged upon the system, the UK government would be able to issue a speedy refuse refusal and try and effect removal. As it is, people arrive, we don’t have that record, so we don’t know who they are. And also, even if we were [in that database], we wouldn’t be able to return them, because we’re no longer party to that Dublin system that allowed for the transfer of asylum seekers back to countries of first entry..."
And it's also, on the face of it, a credible thesis.
It's a thesis. Where are the numbers?
There are other credible theses available. The nearly certain result is that a variety of concerns and interests push people to getting to the UK. The real question are - What are the percentages for the various reasons? and How do the reasons stacks up across individuals? Nearly no one does something important for a single reason.
The electorate love being told they have no choice or chance
That isn’t what Andrew Neil is saying. The Tories (and to a less extent,at the moment, Labour) are damaged goods that have been tried and failed.
Reform is as yet untested so is the great hope for people who don’t think the Government (and the last Tory one) is looking after their interests.
Andrew Neil is rightly pointing out that the next election is as much Reform’s to lose (by screwing up) as it is Labour’s to win.
And in all plausible results at the moment if the Tories stand still they will be doing well
Given how shit / dodgy all the parties are, it feels a bit like one of the mascot races over the jumps. Who knows which one and when they will fall and their comedy sized head detaches. And even if it does, they might still win because everybody else suffers the same fate.
It’s always tricky to call these contests without the candidates in place yet because it’s all about who can get 80 nominations, and some of that comes down to personal friendships/relationships etc. Or even the desire to “broaden the debate” as per the Corbyn foolishness in 2015 (wonder if Margaret Beckett has gotten over that yet).
I don’t think it will be a huge field. I do expect it to be almost all or even universally female. It looks like Downing Street are pushing Mahmood as the preferred candidate of No.10, which I predict means she won’t get it. Thornberry feels like a good shout to me, but I’d want to see the final list first.
Gen Z are flocking to the National Trust to relieve climate anxiety and get away from social media.
The conservation charity has seen a surge in popularity among young people, with membership among 18 to 25-year-olds rising by 35 per cent in the year to March. Young membership numbers have increased by a further 16 per cent since the start of March, according to its annual report.
No booze, church and National Trust. Gen Z are a funny lot.
Some positive signs from the young, caring about our past and heritage and growing closer to Christ and not getting drunk regularly
Isn’t the NT a cesspit of Wokery and butter free scones?
Indeed, they dared to mention the S-word on the label of a statue of an oppressed African specially bought and then displayed in a specially built niche at Armstrong's (merchant of death etc.) pad. Cue fear and loathing on PB.
Is there any value in it? I've had a nibble on Lisa Nandy (4.4) and Rosena Allin-Khan (8.3).
There was. Laying Lammy was/is I think free money.
There seems to be some backing for Nandy too - she's obviously done pretty well in past elections, but all that past baggage isn't a plus in my view. Seems a lay too.
Alin-Khan is interesting - someone seems to have managed to get very lucky in 12p at 1000-1. Thornberry too might do well
I'm unsure about whether Burnham could run - seems he's decided not to even if he can though.
It could be the most exciting betting market of the year - admittedly a very poor betting year.
I still fondly recall Hattie Harman's great race victory - a bit of a coup for me betting-wise.
Needs to be an MP which rules out Andy Burnham. I might have considered Dawn Butler, who is a better walker-and-talker than Robert Jenrick but she is not even quoted.
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a link that says it has to be an MP. I see MPs need to support the candidate, but have managed to miss 'has to be an MP'
I think there is a tipping point with Reform where if enough people become aware of the crazy, it will hit support. Despite all the comparisons the UK is not quite the states yet where everything is excused dependant on one’s overall worldview (though it is skating perilously close to the edge).
But I’d just let these things feed into general public discourse through osmosis: I wouldn’t, as a political party, go particularly hard on it. Just highlight it and leave it there for people to realise the nuttiness.
There multiple ways in which Reform don't form/lead the next government. The 60-65% who really don't want this need to work on them.
Being found out as nasty natured charlatans and chancers who have policies that are both contradictory and crazy, with huge silences over every really hard questions and little talent would be a start.
The next would be for other parties (the Tories have a big choice here, and look like making the wrong one) to get a lot better at centrist politics and for government to start getting better at doing its job so that tactical voting by the 60% who don't want Reform can be credible and effective.
The Tory choice? Is to say that they would rather be in coalition with Labour than with Reform.
In all honesty, the Tories aren’t much in charge of their own destiny right now. They’ll either recover or decline based on the relative performance of Reform, in all likelihood, and there’s not a tremendous amount they can do up until that point other than reminding people they exist and trying to talk some vague sense.
Labour are the ones with their hands on the machinery of government. They are the ones who can deliver results. But a note on “centrism” per your post - if we are taking centrism to mean the broad consensus politics that we’ve been used to in recent years, that isn’t going to deliver the results - so there needs to be a type of “radical centrism” for want of a much better term; that acknowledges that departure from the precedent is the only way we are going to get society working for people. Some politicians are slowly starting to get this, but I doubt they have the political will to really try and do anything about it. We shall see.
Thanks. Yes. Centrism comes in flavours and is more than consensus but has a common core. Trump, Corbyn, Farage (probably), Putin, Xi, Polanski, Galloway are not centrists. Centrism, as I see it, is serious about avoiding populism (simple answers to complex questions), accepting the democratic process, avoiding authoritarianism, upholding the rule of law and separation of powers, working with an international order, accepts the world is complicated and imperfect, upholds private enterprise and a substantial welfare state, doesn't demonise minorities, prefers Adam Smith and David Ricardo to Marx, is fiscally responsible.
Within those constraints any amount of radicalism is possible. As Attlee, Thatcher and Blair illustrate.
Online the term has simply come to mean 'interested in politics but not hard left and not voting for Farage'.
I think if it as ‘self satisfied, comfortably off with no empathy for people who struggle in a world they never go to’
Ah not an insult then.
Not really
Blinkered is an decent alternative for centrist I think
It’s always tricky to call these contests without the candidates in place yet because it’s all about who can get 80 nominations, and some of that comes down to personal friendships/relationships etc. Or even the desire to “broaden the debate” as per the Corbyn foolishness in 2015 (wonder if Margaret Beckett has gotten over that yet).
I don’t think it will be a huge field. I do expect it to be almost all or even universally female. It looks like Downing Street are pushing Mahmood as the preferred candidate of No.10, which I predict means she won’t get it. Thornberry feels like a good shout to me, but I’d want to see the final list first.
Mahmood has already said she’s not going for it . And apparently they want someone from the north not London .
Bridget Phillipson might be an option although not sure if she’s interested . She’s more soft left and members might decide they want someone outside of the cabinet . Of course their choices are dictated by the MPs in the first place .
So following @RobD 's help there's at least a vaguely interesting betting clash for the Deputy leadership
Burnham trying to be the gris noir, Starmer trying to control the agenda, the women (Allin-khan, Thornberry, Haigh, Nandy, etc) wanting status.
So despite the suggestions in the press I don't think Starmer will back a candidate in any way.
It's very hard to see why any candidate might choose camp Burnham too - second fiddle to a twice failed pretender?
The various women candidates clearly offer value somewhere as a bet (assuming the market properly forms)
And then... random Labour man - could he run!!?
Burnham grates on me . He has this air of apparently thinking he’s Labours saviour and that everyone is desperate for him to find a seat , which of course he could have tried to do last year . But he’d rather stay as Mayor of Manchester where he can continue to tease his legion of fans as to when he’ll return like Moses to save us all .
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
Did we suggest this on pb? It sounds familiar, almost Trumpian.
Not really Trumpian. What happens is that, in several countries, the government proclaims they will not assist UK authorities, in any way or circumstance, to take migrants back. This is because there is a strong aspiration in such countries to migrate to the UK.
In the face of non-cooperation, why should the UK cooperate on visas?
I think there is a tipping point with Reform where if enough people become aware of the crazy, it will hit support. Despite all the comparisons the UK is not quite the states yet where everything is excused dependant on one’s overall worldview (though it is skating perilously close to the edge).
But I’d just let these things feed into general public discourse through osmosis: I wouldn’t, as a political party, go particularly hard on it. Just highlight it and leave it there for people to realise the nuttiness.
There multiple ways in which Reform don't form/lead the next government. The 60-65% who really don't want this need to work on them.
Being found out as nasty natured charlatans and chancers who have policies that are both contradictory and crazy, with huge silences over every really hard questions and little talent would be a start.
The next would be for other parties (the Tories have a big choice here, and look like making the wrong one) to get a lot better at centrist politics and for government to start getting better at doing its job so that tactical voting by the 60% who don't want Reform can be credible and effective.
The Tory choice? Is to say that they would rather be in coalition with Labour than with Reform.
But they wouldn't, would they? Really? Deep down? And anyways. That would lead to a peeling off of half of their current support. Leaving them in single figures.
That all depends on what sort of Tory party they want to be. Of course they would lose support of they went 'we are not Reform, we are One Nation Tories, we are not unpleasant English nationalists'. But that's because they have already lost their centrist One Nation heartland voters. Look at 2024, look at the polls.
No-one wants to vote Tory at the moment because they are useless, unprincipled, incoherent and Reformlite.
The way back is not populism, Farage will always beat them there, but articulating in principle and policy what Toryism stands for and how it works, here and now.
Have they? Nearly half the current Tory vote were Remainers according to Yougov, the current Tory Party is more One Nation than it was after 2019 certainly, most of the hardest Leavers are now in Reform. Hence Cleverly is likely to replace Kemi if she is removed rather than Jenrick
No doubt this is true, but the numbers are derisory. In a normal world with a normal Tory party and Labour being as sub optimal as they are the Tories should be over double their current polling - more like 45% - and appealing to those who want sound finance, a good climate for private enterprise and a sane welfare state. And the Tories would have had, since 2016 a clearly directed policy towards the post-Brexit world, prepared well in advance of the referendum.
Even in a normal world that would only get about 36% as Cameron got in 2010 and 2015 with a strong third party like Farage's alongside.
Tories and Reform combined are on around 48% as Farage and Reform also appeal to some traditional Labour voters who are socially conservative and want to send immigrants back to where they came from but also centrist and even mildly big state on economics. Voters who may have voted Brown in 2010, UKIP in 2015 and even for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 (with a few lending their vote to Boris who would otherwise never vote Tory) then for Labour or Reform last year.
Farage's problem is Reform contains many ex Tory voters too for whom the Tories weren't Thatcherite enough when they were in government and spent and taxed too much and he will find it difficult to hold both wings
So following @RobD 's help there's at least a vaguely interesting betting clash for the Deputy leadership
Burnham trying to be the gris noir, Starmer trying to control the agenda, the women (Allin-khan, Thornberry, Haigh, Nandy, etc) wanting status.
So despite the suggestions in the press I don't think Starmer will back a candidate in any way.
It's very hard to see why any candidate might choose camp Burnham too - second fiddle to a twice failed pretender?
The various women candidates clearly offer value somewhere as a bet (assuming the market properly forms)
And then... random Labour man - could he run!!?
Burnham grates on me . He has this air of apparently thinking he’s Labours saviour and that everyone is desperate for him to find a seat , which of course he could have tried to do last year . But he’d rather stay as Mayor of Manchester where he can continue to tease his legion of fans as to when he’ll return like Moses to save us all .
Agree. However he seems to have an uncanny popularity with some Labourites. A bit like the wistful longing for a better Milliband to re-emerge.
Did we suggest this on pb? It sounds familiar, almost Trumpian.
Not really Trumpian. What happens is that, in several countries, the government proclaims they will not assist UK authorities, in any way or circumstance, to take migrants back. This is because there is a strong aspiration in such countries to migrate to the UK.
In the face of non-cooperation, why should the UK cooperate on visas?
I have no problem with the government doing this . I expect Mahmood will put out more policies over the coming weeks which might make more lib minded voters feel uncomfortable . My red line is leaving the ECHR . Libs are going to have to accept some things and think of the bigger picture . Reform must not win the next GE .
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
Look, we didn't drive trains, we didn't do the hard 32 hour weeks with endless holidays, we didn't suffer the mental turmoil of working out quite where to live in order that the pension doesn't overflow the coffers.
I and many others loafed it in the private sector. Insane attempts to actually do something all round!
Did we suggest this on pb? It sounds familiar, almost Trumpian.
Not really Trumpian. What happens is that, in several countries, the government proclaims they will not assist UK authorities, in any way or circumstance, to take migrants back. This is because there is a strong aspiration in such countries to migrate to the UK.
In the face of non-cooperation, why should the UK cooperate on visas?
I'm not arguing against it; indeed, I've half a notion we invented it. But it does also sound like the sort of thing President Trump would do (although thinking about it, he'd probably rack up tariffs first).
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
Look, we didn't drive trains, we didn't do the hard 32 hour weeks with endless holidays, we didn't suffer the mental turmoil of working out quite where to live in order that the pension doesn't overflow the coffers.
I and many others loafed it in the private sector. Insane attempts to actually do something all round!
With Arseton Bell now running the Treasury we have many horrors to enjoy coming up in November
Except he was a doctor not a nurse and male not female, so more a French Harold Shipman
Hospital based. Mysterious deaths, but he's still allowed to work for a period. Do odd physiological results prove murder? I think he's more like Letby than Shipman.
Did we suggest this on pb? It sounds familiar, almost Trumpian.
Not really Trumpian. What happens is that, in several countries, the government proclaims they will not assist UK authorities, in any way or circumstance, to take migrants back. This is because there is a strong aspiration in such countries to migrate to the UK.
In the face of non-cooperation, why should the UK cooperate on visas?
I have no problem with the government doing this . I expect Mahmood will put out more policies over the coming weeks which might make more lib minded voters feel uncomfortable . My red line is leaving the ECHR . Libs are going to have to accept some things and think of the bigger picture . Reform must not win the next GE .
Does anyone here have, or know about, Feed in tariffs for Solar Panels? We get a cheque every three months and Jun/JulAug was the same as Mar/Apr/May, thought it would be more
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
What Inman doesn't seem to understand - or perhaps he does understand and it infuriates him - is that pretty much every non-public sector worker will soon have their own personal pension because of compulsory enrolment.
And that 40+ years of contributions to them will create pension pots worth hundreds of thousands for ordinary workers.
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
What Inman doesn't seem to understand - or perhaps he does understand and it infuriates him - is that pretty much every non-public sector worker will soon have their own personal pension because of compulsory enrolment.
And that 40+ years of contributions to them will create pension pots worth hundreds of thousands for ordinary workers.
Yes, a successful response to the retirement funding crisis leading to less dependence on the state. A disaster for his sort
So following @RobD 's help there's at least a vaguely interesting betting clash for the Deputy leadership
Burnham trying to be the gris noir, Starmer trying to control the agenda, the women (Allin-khan, Thornberry, Haigh, Nandy, etc) wanting status.
So despite the suggestions in the press I don't think Starmer will back a candidate in any way.
It's very hard to see why any candidate might choose camp Burnham too - second fiddle to a twice failed pretender?
The various women candidates clearly offer value somewhere as a bet (assuming the market properly forms)
And then... random Labour man - could he run!!?
Burnham grates on me . He has this air of apparently thinking he’s Labours saviour and that everyone is desperate for him to find a seat , which of course he could have tried to do last year . But he’d rather stay as Mayor of Manchester where he can continue to tease his legion of fans as to when he’ll return like Moses to save us all .
Agree. However he seems to have an uncanny popularity with some Labourites. A bit like the wistful longing for a better Milliband to re-emerge.
It's not uncanny. It's simply that he can, as Mayor, advocate more spending, more services etc. He can assign the cause of any shortfall in public services to insufficient funding from central government.
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
A couple of points arise. First, Inman is right that higher rate tax relief on contributions can go but where does 25 per cent come from when the lower rate is 20 per cent? A touch of self-interest, possibly, given higher rate relief favours (obviously) the better paid such as academics and media pundits.
Second, the 25 per cent tax-free withdrawal was partly motivated by problems with low annuity rates. Really some long term thinking is called for to end the lottery of annuities being dependent on the accident of interest rates on that particular day.
Third, why the sudden pivot away from pensions to some academic's pet idea on council tax? Did Inman lose faith in his pension proposals halfway through?
Does anyone here have, or know about, Feed in tariffs for Solar Panels? We get a cheque every three months and Jun/JulAug was the same as Mar/Apr/May, thought it would be more
Last year it was £200 then £300, this year both were £300… maybe we just had a sunnier spring
An interesting take on small boat arrivals from a researcher into what's causing people to come here, arguing that Brexit is one of the drivers. It really is the gift that keeps on giving.
The media don’t want to talk about it but it’s clearly had an impact and it’s so obvious by just looking at the figures post Brexit .
It is noticeable that these pieces on the "why" of the migrants find migrants with reasons to reinforce the thesis of the writer. As a result, I think that such pieces are plurals of anecdotes.
I've seen very little on scientific surveys of the mixture of reasons that people come here.
Are Migration Observatory likely to be looking to reinforce a thesis in that manner?
While this is, for now, just commentary, they do tend to publish their workings.
Walsh said, that for people like this, if the UK was still in the EU their chances of being granted asylum here would be “much diminished”. He said:
"In those circumstances, typically, flagged upon the system, the UK government would be able to issue a speedy refuse refusal and try and effect removal. As it is, people arrive, we don’t have that record, so we don’t know who they are. And also, even if we were [in that database], we wouldn’t be able to return them, because we’re no longer party to that Dublin system that allowed for the transfer of asylum seekers back to countries of first entry..."
And it's also, on the face of it, a credible thesis.
It's a thesis. Where are the numbers?
There are other credible theses available. The nearly certain result is that a variety of concerns and interests push people to getting to the UK. The real question are - What are the percentages for the various reasons? and How do the reasons stacks up across individuals? Nearly no one does something important for a single reason.
There seems to be a wide range of reasons. Some are in the UK’s power to influence, some not (or less so):
- sheer volume of migration from hotspots, of which UK gets its portion: hard to influence in the short term - English language: can’t influence - Existing friends or relatives in UK: can’t influence - Easy to disappear into grey economy / weak labour law enforcement: can influence - Access to healthcare and benefits system: can influence - Lack of access to EU databases post Brexit: could theoretically influence - French health and safety rules on stopping boats: hard to influence - Strength and reach of organised crime gangs: could influence, but hard - No alternative legal routes at source: can influence - Most asylum claims successful: could influence, but not straightforward
Gen Z are flocking to the National Trust to relieve climate anxiety and get away from social media.
The conservation charity has seen a surge in popularity among young people, with membership among 18 to 25-year-olds rising by 35 per cent in the year to March. Young membership numbers have increased by a further 16 per cent since the start of March, according to its annual report.
No booze, church and National Trust. Gen Z are a funny lot.
Young people are weirdly wholesome. Nothing my 19 year old daughter likes more than doing a jigsaw. She's started making her own clothes. My 13 year old is massively into crochet. It's baffling.
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
...but where does 25 per cent come from when the lower rate is 20 per cent? ...
There has to be some net incentive to save in such an inflexible long term vehicle.
Even then, I'm not sure anyone would be well advised to put money into a personal pension if they only get 25% tax relief on the way in and expect to pay whatever basic rate income tax is on the way out, with no tax free lump sum. The inflexibility, the exposure to IHT from 2027, the platform and fund fees, the risk of further adverse changes to legislation, the very real possibility that basic rate income tax will be back at 25% or higher when you come to retire... all these things should put people off.
(Yes there's an NI saving at the moment but whaddyaknow, that's also up for review apparently....)
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
I have to declare several interests in this matter. Firstly, my personal pension funds are around £700k with my wife having a bit more, maybe another £50k. Secondly, especially in recent years, that sum has been accumulated by the government paying 20% on to my contributions and, in addition, giving me tax relief of 20% in addition (the actually mechanics of this have moved from the Byzantine to the incomprehensible but the broad thrust remains the same). When I retire in a few years I am hoping to receive a significant tax free lump sum that can pay for some serious self indulgence on the part of both myself and my much more deserving spouse.
In short, my pension has accrued because of a scheme which could only reasonably be called fantastically generous. What is the public interest in this? Well, as I have been incentivised to save this way I will not be claiming any means related benefits as a pensioner. I have deferred expenditure which, along with other pension savers, has made funds available for investment, something this country sorely needs. If I had not had these incentives I might have made other choices. Or, of course, I might have thought I needed to save even more.
Taking a step back, pensions are a major benefit, costing well in excess of £50bn of foregone taxes a year, for the better off. Why should those on HRT get more tax relief than those on basic rate? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way around. Why should I get a serious chunk of deferred income, topped up with government funds, tax free when those with less income or a smaller pension pot get less? Again, should it not be the other way around?
What people like me have to face is should we be cutting welfare for the disabled, the sick and the genuinely incompetent or should the focus in fact be on people like me? Don't tell the wife I am even asking the question.
R4 WATO spent 5 minutes on the Jerusalem murders, another 5 on the death of Supertamp's Rick Davies and a 35 minute hatchet job on the Government. Now that is fair enough, but surely any pretence that the BBC are still impartial needs to be clarified. The BBC should, like the press media endorse a specific party so we the viewer and listener know where we are, be that Reform or the Conservatives. The Charter is no longer applied.
R4 WATO spent 5 minutes on the Jerusalem murders, another 5 on the death of Supertamp's Rick Davies and a 35 minute hatchet job on the Government. Now that is fair enough, but surely any pretence that the BBC are still impartial needs to be clarified. The BBC should, like the press media endorse a specific party so we the viewer and listener know where we are, be that Reform or the Conservatives. The Charter is no longer applied.
R4 WATO spent 5 minutes on the Jerusalem murders, another 5 on the death of Supertamp's Rick Davies and a 35 minute hatchet job on the Government. Now that is fair enough, but surely any pretence that the BBC are still impartial needs to be clarified. The BBC should, like the press media endorse a specific party so we the viewer and listener know where we are, be that Reform or the Conservatives. The Charter is no longer applied.
I agree, scrap the licence fee.
You are right. Paying the licence fee for the BBC to produce fawning, but tacit endorsements of Reform is inappropriate. Endorse Reform by all means, but not with licence payers's money.
R4 WATO spent 5 minutes on the Jerusalem murders, another 5 on the death of Supertamp's Rick Davies and a 35 minute hatchet job on the Government. Now that is fair enough, but surely any pretence that the BBC are still impartial needs to be clarified. The BBC should, like the press media endorse a specific party so we the viewer and listener know where we are, be that Reform or the Conservatives. The Charter is no longer applied.
To many (most) journalists, "taking the government line" means being Tame Press. Hence Brian Redhead vs Tebbit I mentioned a little while ago.
I recall at the beginning of the New Labour era a similar disbelief that*they* were now being criticised.
Another one was during the First Gulf War. The head of CNN complained that they weren't being given all the videos from smart bomb strikes. And that the US government was hiding the truth by not showing all the misses. The hit rate was about 85% at this point. In an interview (BBC, I think), the CNN guy said that, if given the complete set of videos, they would show a couple of the hits - and all the misses.
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
I have to declare several interests in this matter. Firstly, my personal pension funds are around £700k with my wife having a bit more. Secondly, especially in recent years, that sum has been accumulated by the government paying 20% on to my contributions and, in addition, giving me tax relief of 20% in addition (the actually mechanics of this have moved from the Byzantine to the incomprehensible but the broad thrust remains the same). When I retire in a few years I am hoping to receive a significant tax free lump sum that pay for some serious self indulgence on the part of both myself and my much more deserving spouse.
In short, my pension has accrued because of a scheme which could only reasonably be called fantastically generous. What is the public interest in this? Well, as I have been incentivised to save this way I will not be claiming any means related benefits as a pensioner. I have deferred expenditure which, along with other pension savers, has made funds available for investment, something this country sorely needs. If I had not had these incentives I might have made other choices. Or, of course, I might have thought I needed to save even more.
Taking a step back, pensions are a major benefit, costing well in excess of £50bn of foregone taxes a year, for the better off. Why should those on HRT get more tax relief than those on basic rate? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way around. Why should I get a serious chunk of deferred income, topped up with government funds, tax free when those with less income or a smaller pension pot get less? Again, should it not be the other way around?
What people like me have to face is should we be cutting welfare for the disabled, the sick and the genuinely incompetent or should the focus in fact be on people like me? Don't tell the wife I am even asking the question.
There are 2 principles in play: - pensions are deferred pay. Ignoring the tax free lump sum for now, it is only right that deferred pay should be taxed when it is actually received, not when it is deferred; - (i) a non-means tested state pension and (ii) tax incentives for private pension saving are the measures needed to encourage middle Britain to save for its own retirement and be less likely to fall back on the State.
One doesn't have to agree with those principles, but they have been pretty much the basis of the "settlement" between the State and savers for a long time now. Unfortunately, the over-generous tax treatment of death benefits in the 2015 reforms, and then the recent overreaction to that by riding roughshod over basic trust and tax law and imposing IHT on those death benefits, make it feel like everything is up for debate again.
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
I have to declare several interests in this matter. Firstly, my personal pension funds are around £700k with my wife having a bit more, maybe another £50k. Secondly, especially in recent years, that sum has been accumulated by the government paying 20% on to my contributions and, in addition, giving me tax relief of 20% in addition (the actually mechanics of this have moved from the Byzantine to the incomprehensible but the broad thrust remains the same). When I retire in a few years I am hoping to receive a significant tax free lump sum that can pay for some serious self indulgence on the part of both myself and my much more deserving spouse.
In short, my pension has accrued because of a scheme which could only reasonably be called fantastically generous. What is the public interest in this? Well, as I have been incentivised to save this way I will not be claiming any means related benefits as a pensioner. I have deferred expenditure which, along with other pension savers, has made funds available for investment, something this country sorely needs. If I had not had these incentives I might have made other choices. Or, of course, I might have thought I needed to save even more.
Taking a step back, pensions are a major benefit, costing well in excess of £50bn of foregone taxes a year, for the better off. Why should those on HRT get more tax relief than those on basic rate? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way around. Why should I get a serious chunk of deferred income, topped up with government funds, tax free when those with less income or a smaller pension pot get less? Again, should it not be the other way around?
What people like me have to face is should we be cutting welfare for the disabled, the sick and the genuinely incompetent or should the focus in fact be on people like me? Don't tell the wife I am even asking the question.
Damn, my pot is only worth £197,317.61 apparently. Still another 23 year to retirement or so.
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension' Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
I have to declare several interests in this matter. Firstly, my personal pension funds are around £700k with my wife having a bit more, maybe another £50k. Secondly, especially in recent years, that sum has been accumulated by the government paying 20% on to my contributions and, in addition, giving me tax relief of 20% in addition (the actually mechanics of this have moved from the Byzantine to the incomprehensible but the broad thrust remains the same). When I retire in a few years I am hoping to receive a significant tax free lump sum that can pay for some serious self indulgence on the part of both myself and my much more deserving spouse.
In short, my pension has accrued because of a scheme which could only reasonably be called fantastically generous. What is the public interest in this? Well, as I have been incentivised to save this way I will not be claiming any means related benefits as a pensioner. I have deferred expenditure which, along with other pension savers, has made funds available for investment, something this country sorely needs. If I had not had these incentives I might have made other choices. Or, of course, I might have thought I needed to save even more.
Taking a step back, pensions are a major benefit, costing well in excess of £50bn of foregone taxes a year, for the better off. Why should those on HRT get more tax relief than those on basic rate? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way around. Why should I get a serious chunk of deferred income, topped up with government funds, tax free when those with less income or a smaller pension pot get less? Again, should it not be the other way around?
What people like me have to face is should we be cutting welfare for the disabled, the sick and the genuinely incompetent or should the focus in fact be on people like me? Don't tell the wife I am even asking the question.
Well, indeed. There are questions to be posed. The problem is the sledgehammer to crack a nut response we often get. If the government want to cap Tax Free Cash from pensions then they need to do it up the chain, in six figures (of TFC) A 100,000 pension pot at retirement age gets you a derisory annuity of just over 3 and a half grand. A government that goes after people who take a smaller figure to enjoy a 25,000 lump sum to get them a few little luxuries or home improvements has totally lost the plot. A lifetime allowance of 125,000 tax free cash on pensions (so half a million pots) seems OK perhaps?
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, Thank God, the British journalist, But when you see what he will do, Unbribed, There is no need."
When, over the course of about forty years of interest in politics, I've witnessed the actions of the sensible centrists, I think there is little need for populist extremists. The former are perfectly capable of screwing up.
Defending the borders is just a basic thing the government ought to be doing according to most people. Not doing it is crazy. So I think trying to criticise Reform as crazy probably isn't going to work.
Gen Z are flocking to the National Trust to relieve climate anxiety and get away from social media.
The conservation charity has seen a surge in popularity among young people, with membership among 18 to 25-year-olds rising by 35 per cent in the year to March. Young membership numbers have increased by a further 16 per cent since the start of March, according to its annual report.
No booze, church and National Trust. Gen Z are a funny lot.
Young people are weirdly wholesome. Nothing my 19 year old daughter likes more than doing a jigsaw. She's started making her own clothes. My 13 year old is massively into crochet. It's baffling.
Just the other day my mate said he’d gone out for dinner on Saturday night with his wife and their 15 yr old son. I was shocked, as at 15 there is no way I’d have been seen dead with the parents. Saturday night was finding a free house and drinking/taking drugs really. They also all go to watch his football training every week, which I found odd. A sign of the times, for the best really too.
Comments
Also remember Tyne and Wear was founded in 1974 abandoned in 1986 and those 12 years were so traumatic for those south of the Tyne that they vetoed doing anything with Newcastle Council until 2023 when they were bribed into working with Newcastle...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g7xyn03yno
However, if were still in the EU, we would have had to become part of the EUs new migrant-sharing quota system, the increase from which would have probably outweighed any advantage from the above.
So the counterfactual runs both ways.
While this is, for now, just commentary, they do tend to publish their workings.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/sep/08/labour-deputy-leadership-election-contest-keir-starmer-angela-rayner-uk-politics-live
.."We speak with asylum seekers now, and often they’ve claimed asylum in the EU country, sometimes been refused, but they understand that because the UK is no longer a part of the EU, and no longer party to the EU’s fingerprint database for asylum seekers, if they can get to the UK, they have another bite of the cherry and another chance to secure asylum status and remain in Europe."
Walsh said, that for people like this, if the UK was still in the EU their chances of being granted asylum here would be “much diminished”. He said:
"In those circumstances, typically, flagged upon the system, the UK government would be able to issue a speedy refuse refusal and try and effect removal.
As it is, people arrive, we don’t have that record, so we don’t know who they are.
And also, even if we were [in that database], we wouldn’t be able to return them, because we’re no longer party to that Dublin system that allowed for the transfer of asylum seekers back to countries of first entry..."
And it's also, on the face of it, a credible thesis.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i-wy7eiiEU0
Women only says woman.
That would confirm rumours Starmer and Reeves are looking to review the policies on climate change, but also how weak he is as PM when he cannot move a minister that is popular with the membership
I have no doubt Starmer and Reeves are moving to the right not least because they have to, and I expect both union and worker rights legislation, promoted by Rayner, to be put on ice in an attempt to boost businesses and of course growth
And "that", is what allies of Keir Starmer will be asking tonight. "Can he do it" ? "That" ,is what "the elecorate, and the Labour party, will soon be finding out. Back to you in the studio, Chris.
So Mason was a little more circumspect with Advance than he was with his Reform Conference eulogy.
Hmm. Apparently the NEC will discuss the arrangements today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c059z4g836eo
Times Radio Politics"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkZr9hJ_hoY
Raphael Rashid
@koryodynasty
·
8h
4/ Chosun calls the situation "bewildering" and emphasises the contradiction: Trump pressures Korean companies to invest while simultaneously arresting their workers. The editorial questions whether American investment promises survive across different administrations.
Raphael Rashid
@koryodynasty
3/ Chosun Ilbo (flagship conservative): Scathing language calling this a "merciless arrest operation" that represents something "that cannot happen between allies" and a "breach of trust." Notes Trump personally thanked Hyundai's chairman just months ago.
https://x.com/koryodynasty/status/1964894921795711081
He'll fk it up like he did Framing.
The specific issue here is that the US rations temporary work visas in this category, and while places like Singapore have an annual allocation, S Korea doesn't, despite repeated requests.
Which makes getting an advanced manufacturing plant up and running, without bending the law, virtually impossible.
Usually, a blind eye has been turned, for everyone's benefit. But here, a local MAGA candidate for office raised a stink with ICE, which prompted the raid.
Judging by Trump's comments in the last day or so, some, even in this administration, recognise that this isn't smart.
- the legal right to reside, rather than merely visit, which can be gained via several routes including but not limited to "golden visas" for substantial investment. Advisers incentivised by property or other investment commissions tend not to highlight the non-investment routes;
- the fact of tax residence, which is normally just based on the fact of spending >x days in the country but can also be based on number of ties to the country, having a permanent place to stay, etc.
For Portugal, the big change in the last year or so is withdrawal of the original NHR tax scheme. Under NHR 1.0, pretty much anyone new to Portugal could pay Portuguese income tax rates only on Portuguese income, with 0% or very low rates for UK or other foreign income.
There's an NHR 2.0 but it's a lot narrower in scope.
(Also, as I'm sure many know, tax residence ends up being less about trying to make sure you ARE tax resident in the new country and more about trying to make sure you AREN'T tax resident in the UK).
I slightly doubt, even if nominated, that he'll win, even though it's a radically different genre from English Teacher, the album shares the Northern wordiness, plus he's been dating Lily Fontaine, so there's a Rock Family Trees thing going on.
Plus the occasional call out that he is derivative of The Streets - I really don't quite see it myself, the overall feel is very, very different and I can't think of any songs that would be readily interchangeable across between 'Service Station...' and 'Original Pirate Material' for example. They just sit, several parsecs from each other, in a relatively uncrowded bit of sky.
Chapter 1, clause VII, 1, a, ii.
Reform is as yet untested so is the great hope for people who don’t think the Government (and the last Tory one) is looking after their interests.
Andrew Neil is rightly pointing out that the next election is as much Reform’s to lose (by screwing up) as it is Labour’s to win.
And in all plausible results at the moment if the Tories stand still they will be doing well
This paper describes the current and previous rules for the election of the
Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. It also summarises previous
contests.
Rules for leadership elections are set out in Labour’s Rule Book, with Labour’s
ruling national Executive Committee (NEC) responsible for setting exact
timings and election procedures to be followed.
Timings are affected by whether Labour is in government or not. If the Labour
leader is also Prime Minister and the leadership becomes vacant for any
reason, the Cabinet, in consultation with the NEC, appoints one of its
members to serve as Party leader until a ballot can be organised.
If Labour is in opposition and the leader’s role is vacant, the deputy leader
automatically becomes Party leader, and the NEC will determine the timing of
a leadership ballot.
Vacancies
When a vacancy arises, Labour Party leadership elections consist of two
stages:
Stage 1 – Nominations
Candidates seeking to enter the leadership ballot must be an MP.
They must be nominated by 20% of fellow Labour MPs.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03938/SN03938.pdf
Make of it what you will.
There are other credible theses available. The nearly certain result is that a variety of concerns and interests push people to getting to the UK. The real question are - What are the percentages for the various reasons? and How do the reasons stacks up across individuals? Nearly no one does something important for a single reason.
I don’t think it will be a huge field. I do expect it to be almost all or even universally female. It looks like Downing Street are pushing Mahmood as the preferred candidate of No.10, which I predict means she won’t get it. Thornberry feels like a good shout to me, but I’d want to see the final list first.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Rule-Book-2025.pdf
ETA the NEC is meeting today. I do not know if they can change the rules, or just the timeline.
I sometimes think nobody in this country can do anything properly anymore... still, this is hilarious.
Blinkered is an decent alternative for centrist I think
Burnham trying to be the gris noir, Starmer trying to control the agenda, the women (Allin-khan, Thornberry, Haigh, Nandy, etc) wanting status.
So despite the suggestions in the press I don't think Starmer will back a candidate in any way.
It's very hard to see why any candidate might choose camp Burnham too - second fiddle to a twice failed pretender?
The various women candidates clearly offer value somewhere as a bet (assuming the market properly forms)
And then... random Labour man - could he run!!?
Bridget Phillipson might be an option although not sure if she’s interested . She’s more soft left and members might decide they want someone outside of the cabinet . Of course their choices are dictated by the MPs in the first place .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g7xyn03yno
Did we suggest this on pb? It sounds familiar, almost Trumpian.
Reform and the Tories up 1, Labour unchanged if you can believe it
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/06/rachel-reeves-50bn-problem-solved-stop-pension-tax-relief
The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.
It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.
The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.
In the face of non-cooperation, why should the UK cooperate on visas?
Tories and Reform combined are on around 48% as Farage and Reform also appeal to some traditional Labour voters who are socially conservative and want to send immigrants back to where they came from but also centrist and even mildly big state on economics. Voters who may have voted Brown in 2010, UKIP in 2015 and even for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 (with a few lending their vote to Boris who would otherwise never vote Tory) then for Labour or Reform last year.
Farage's problem is Reform contains many ex Tory voters too for whom the Tories weren't Thatcherite enough when they were in government and spent and taxed too much and he will find it difficult to hold both wings
Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt
I and many others loafed it in the private sector. Insane attempts to actually do something all round!
And that 40+ years of contributions to them will create pension pots worth hundreds of thousands for ordinary workers.
He never has to oppose any progressive cause.
No wonder the Labour party faithful love that.
Second, the 25 per cent tax-free withdrawal was partly motivated by problems with low annuity rates. Really some long term thinking is called for to end the lottery of annuities being dependent on the accident of interest rates on that particular day.
Third, why the sudden pivot away from pensions to some academic's pet idea on council tax? Did Inman lose faith in his pension proposals halfway through?
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1965029523776496012?s=19
- sheer volume of migration from hotspots, of which UK gets its portion: hard to influence in the short term
- English language: can’t influence
- Existing friends or relatives in UK: can’t influence
- Easy to disappear into grey economy / weak labour law enforcement: can influence
- Access to healthcare and benefits system: can influence
- Lack of access to EU databases post Brexit: could theoretically influence
- French health and safety rules on stopping boats: hard to influence
- Strength and reach of organised crime gangs: could influence, but hard
- No alternative legal routes at source: can influence
- Most asylum claims successful: could influence, but not straightforward
Even then, I'm not sure anyone would be well advised to put money into a personal pension if they only get 25% tax relief on the way in and expect to pay whatever basic rate income tax is on the way out, with no tax free lump sum. The inflexibility, the exposure to IHT from 2027, the platform and fund fees, the risk of further adverse changes to legislation, the very real possibility that basic rate income tax will be back at 25% or higher when you come to retire... all these things should put people off.
(Yes there's an NI saving at the moment but whaddyaknow, that's also up for review apparently....)
Secondly, especially in recent years, that sum has been accumulated by the government paying 20% on to my contributions and, in addition, giving me tax relief of 20% in addition (the actually mechanics of this have moved from the Byzantine to the incomprehensible but the broad thrust remains the same). When I retire in a few years I am hoping to receive a significant tax free lump sum that can pay for some serious self indulgence on the part of both myself and my much more deserving spouse.
In short, my pension has accrued because of a scheme which could only reasonably be called fantastically generous. What is the public interest in this? Well, as I have been incentivised to save this way I will not be claiming any means related benefits as a pensioner. I have deferred expenditure which, along with other pension savers, has made funds available for investment, something this country sorely needs. If I had not had these incentives I might have made other choices. Or, of course, I might have thought I needed to save even more.
Taking a step back, pensions are a major benefit, costing well in excess of £50bn of foregone taxes a year, for the better off. Why should those on HRT get more tax relief than those on basic rate? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way around. Why should I get a serious chunk of deferred income, topped up with government funds, tax free when those with less income or a smaller pension pot get less? Again, should it not be the other way around?
What people like me have to face is should we be cutting welfare for the disabled, the sick and the genuinely incompetent or should the focus in fact be on people like me? Don't tell the wife I am even asking the question.
I recall at the beginning of the New Labour era a similar disbelief that*they* were now being criticised.
Another one was during the First Gulf War. The head of CNN complained that they weren't being given all the videos from smart bomb strikes. And that the US government was hiding the truth by not showing all the misses. The hit rate was about 85% at this point. In an interview (BBC, I think), the CNN guy said that, if given the complete set of videos, they would show a couple of the hits - and all the misses.
- pensions are deferred pay. Ignoring the tax free lump sum for now, it is only right that deferred pay should be taxed when it is actually received, not when it is deferred;
- (i) a non-means tested state pension and (ii) tax incentives for private pension saving are the measures needed to encourage middle Britain to save for its own retirement and be less likely to fall back on the State.
One doesn't have to agree with those principles, but they have been pretty much the basis of the "settlement" between the State and savers for a long time now. Unfortunately, the over-generous tax treatment of death benefits in the 2015 reforms, and then the recent overreaction to that by riding roughshod over basic trust and tax law and imposing IHT on those death benefits, make it feel like everything is up for debate again.
If the government want to cap Tax Free Cash from pensions then they need to do it up the chain, in six figures (of TFC)
A 100,000 pension pot at retirement age gets you a derisory annuity of just over 3 and a half grand. A government that goes after people who take a smaller figure to enjoy a 25,000 lump sum to get them a few little luxuries or home improvements has totally lost the plot.
A lifetime allowance of 125,000 tax free cash on pensions (so half a million pots) seems OK perhaps?