“In the UK, unemployed foreigners who don't speak English are given some of the most sought after housing in London, ahead of English people, and without paying the cost.
I can't get over how absurd this is. Unemployed foreigners could live almost anywhere in the world, yet the system ensures they occupy what is among the most important housing in the world”
Only if they are refugees given leave to remain, we need to ensure they are genuinely in fear of their lives. Minorities at risk from the Taliban who helped western forces and Ukranians from the Russian occupied territories yes, others need to be reviewed
Obviously, all cases are reviewed. On 2021-3 data, countries of origin with high rates of acceptance (>90%) were Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan. It's hard to argue that people are genuinely in fear of their lives coming from those countries. On the other hand, for people coming from India, the acceptance rate was only 6%.
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
It seems to me there are, and will continue to be, two special difficulties in predicting the next election, though the polling is pretty clear about the direction of travel.
The first difficulty is that of relative party/voter turnout. Is 2029 to be an election when usually non voters turn out in droves for Reform (or of course some other party)? Will usual trad party voters stay at home?
The second is translating vote share, once you have decided which methodology about relative turnout gives you the most reliable one, into seats.
Most people seem to think that Baxtering is for losers - and perhaps it is - but I doubt if there is a simple, or indeed any, formula which will help turn votes into seat numbers in the next GE. I am very happy to be wrong about this.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
If we want to spend more, raise taxes to pay for it. Or cut other spending.
We already have 100% debt to GDP. Interest spending exceeds that of education or criminal justice already and more borrowing will make that worse.
The OBR is only reporting on whether the government meets its own rules - it can change the rules if it wishes. In fact, the rules were last changed less than 12 months ago.
Silly to scapegoat the OBR.
I suspect the Treasury's Green Book with it's bias towards expensive London property is a bigger part of the problem - but I don't get why the OBR isn't part of the Treasury - it should be merged into it and then quietly destroyed.
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
And how will the aftermath play? After EU bureaucrats and asylum seekers who will be next to be the cause of every conceivable ill?
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
It’s clear you’ve never worked in IT or the civil service
DWP and HMRC have carefully separated databases with access carefully monitored.
Remember all those people who hate the big databases the ID cards supposedly creates well that letter saying you are owed money is coming from one that has the address and the figure to be paid comes from a completely different one.
Now imagine there are 500 or so template letters that need to be updated and connected to a second database - the one you’ve received is probably not that high on the priority list if it’s on it at all
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
It seems to me there are, and will continue to be, two special difficulties in predicting the next election, though the polling is pretty clear about the direction of travel.
The first difficulty is that of relative party/voter turnout. Is 2029 to be an election when usually non voters turn out in droves for Reform (or of course some other party)? Will usual trad party voters stay at home?
The second is translating vote share, once you have decided which methodology about relative turnout gives you the most reliable one, into seats.
Most people seem to think that Baxtering is for losers - and perhaps it is - but I doubt if there is a simple, or indeed any, formula which will help turn votes into seat numbers in the next GE. I am very happy to be wrong about this.
Can anyone enlighten me?
The third difficulty is that the polling numbers now don't necessarily tell us that much about the polling numbers in 2029.
When we're into 2029, with sufficiently large sample sizes, we might be able to tease out the effects of tactical voting in different constituencies, do some sort of MRP.
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
Knowing how the benefits bit of DWP works, I suspect a formal calculation can only be done by actually generating a payment, whereas a person with a calculator can actually generate the figure easily, if they know how many days' pension are owed.
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
And how will the aftermath play? After EU bureaucrats and asylum seekers who will be next to be the cause of every conceivable ill?
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
It seems to me there are, and will continue to be, two special difficulties in predicting the next election, though the polling is pretty clear about the direction of travel.
The first difficulty is that of relative party/voter turnout. Is 2029 to be an election when usually non voters turn out in droves for Reform (or of course some other party)? Will usual trad party voters stay at home?
The second is translating vote share, once you have decided which methodology about relative turnout gives you the most reliable one, into seats.
Most people seem to think that Baxtering is for losers - and perhaps it is - but I doubt if there is a simple, or indeed any, formula which will help turn votes into seat numbers in the next GE. I am very happy to be wrong about this.
Can anyone enlighten me?
No i agree. The old rules are bunkum. There are many complications - Labour will be burdened like Sunak 24 in 'defending everything' whereas the Tories will be able to refocus on their best prospects for 'holding on' (and they are still raising most £££ last 2 Quarters). LDs have a solid block to work, defend and try to advance from. Green/YP insurgency in the cities, and where are Reform advancing hardest? Watch LE results for this (spoiler - the further north you go......).
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
It’s clear you’ve never worked in IT or the civil service
DWP and HMRC have carefully separated databases with access carefully monitored.
Remember all those people who hate the big databases the ID cards supposedly creates will letter saying you are owed money is coming from one that has the address and the figure to be paid comes from a completely different one
I've just retired from 30 years in IT. Maybe that's why I like exact figures where they are available rather than some fudge that has to be corrected later?
This is nothing to do with HMRC.
The figure to be paid is from DWP, they sent the letter telling me there was money to be paid, with a form to claim it. I only wanted to know how much.
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
It’s clear you’ve never worked in IT or the civil service
DWP and HMRC have carefully separated databases with access carefully monitored.
Remember all those people who hate the big databases the ID cards supposedly creates will letter saying you are owed money is coming from one that has the address and the figure to be paid comes from a completely different one
I've just retired from 30 years in IT. Maybe that's why I like exact figures where they are available rather than some fudge that has to be corrected later?
This is nothing to do with HMRC.
The figure to be paid is from DWP, they sent the letter telling me there was money to be paid, with a form to claim it. I only wanted to know how much.
So the letter has an intent you haven’t picked up on - which is that the amount involved is so small many people won’t be claiming it - so the letter is written the way it is intentionally to 1) reduce the work DWP need to do, and 2) save DWP a few quid and every penny helps
Some of this occurs in all organisations. These sorts of things happen in the private sector, they happen in the third sector. Life is complicated. So, yes, put in the work streamlining processes etc. There's no magic solution here.
I had a minor stroke a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed by the reaction and follow-up by the local hospital - detailed feedback to the GP were followed up a day later by a call from the consultant to resolve pending queries that I had. There was no sense of any hurry in my putting the questions during the call. Some aspects of the NHS are weighed down by procedural complexity abd waiting lists, but if something is urgent they really get their skates on.
The immigration issue was also very starkly clear - 90% of the staff were clearly not of UK descent, and the system would instantly collapse without immigrants and the next generation of immigrants.
Morning all. Counter Intuituve YouGov (or is it?) this week taken 7-8 Sept
Ref 27 (-2) Lab 22 (+2) Con 17 (=) LD 15 (=) Grn 12 (+2) SNP 3 (=) Oth 3
Gives Reform 310 seats, so a hung Parliament and Farage 16 short of a majority.
Farage would therefore need the confidence and supply of the forecast 44 Tory MPs remaining to become PM, if they abstained then he could still become PM but would need Tory support to pass any bills
Allowing for Sinn Fein continuing to abstain, discounting the Speaker, and the DUP and TUV offering at least confidence and supply, he would only be 8 short. Close enough to run a minority government assuming all other parties would need to combine against them.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
If we want to spend more, raise taxes to pay for it. Or cut other spending.
We already have 100% debt to GDP. Interest spending exceeds that of education or criminal justice already and more borrowing will make that worse.
The OBR is only reporting on whether the government meets its own rules - it can change the rules if it wishes. In fact, the rules were last changed less than 12 months ago.
Silly to scapegoat the OBR.
We're chained to it politically. And you're right about debt - it's a real problem.
In business when you want to cut expenditure you usually invest. A new computer system to reduce opex. New fridges in a convenience store to cut energy bills. We need to *significantly* cut our operating expenses as a nation. We need to invest in new things to save us money but we can't do so because political stupidity and OBR rules.
We can't raise taxes without tanking economic output further. We can't keep borrowing to throw money on bonfires like the NHS. But to fix things like the NHS we need to invest a little more on the replacements to then save significantly.
Again I make the point - we already spend more by not spending the money than we save. You can't just cut the emergency spending created by the existing cuts - that will cost even more. So we need to borrow to invest, and gain the return on that investment. You know, capitalism.
Our problem is economic wazzockry and the OBR has become the knot at the heart of this.
I think (not sure) what you are saying is that we need to spend (a lot?) less operationally in order that the borrowing we already make (about £150 bn annually) is used on effective investment instead of borrowing to pay day to day bills and interest payments.
In what way is the OBR stopping the government adjusting its priorities in such a way?
And while increasing the use of borrowing for more effective investment, what and where are the operational cuts coming from? They have to be large.
We are all familiar with retail's great line 'The More You Spend the More You Save' but you need to cash this out in a bit of detail. I think this would be top of the liost of things the PM and the CoE would like to know.
I've thrown "scrap the OBR" as code for the way we do everything when it comes to budgets. Its politics at fault more than the OBR.
My point is this. We simultaneously have record spending on the NHS and cash-starved frontline services delivering medical care. The NHS is a bonfire and tipping more and more cash onto it cannot be the solution, when all that makes it way to the bottom is ash. We need to reform it and my broad concept is scrap much of the administrative structures.
In my old home town we had a choice of two GP practices run by two separate trusts. In the same health centre. With their own separate management teams. Duplication of administration. Same with my old school, now at the heart of a 9 school trust spending literal millions on management as they negotiate tiny deals with mega corps.
It will undoubtedly cost money to scrap all of these false market structures but will then save money. Just as training and hiring teachers will cost money short term then save as we need less temps and results improve. Same with actually giving councils the money to provide sufficient services so that emergency spend mopping up the mess can be saved - not cleaning drains etc.
Sane thing with migration. If we don't want Fillipino staff in the NHS then train people. If we don't want eastern European staff in hospitality then train people. Invest now in skills and training. If we want to put criminals in jail then invest in court capacity and new jails. But treasury orthodoxy backed by OBR reports say we can't afford these things, so Britain continues to crumble and fail.
I was thinking what an absolute dolt Corbyn is. After all the hype of 357 billion people signing up to the website it all goes cold. We might get a name at a possible 'mid Autumn' foundation conference (that a week and a half into Autumn hasnt been announced to allow people to plan attendance) Meanwhile Polanski hoovers up the left/gaza vote. If hes ruthless he should strangle these ridiculous fruits at birth.
Corbyn and Sultana should consider merging with the Greens rather than starting another party.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
If we want to spend more, raise taxes to pay for it. Or cut other spending.
We already have 100% debt to GDP. Interest spending exceeds that of education or criminal justice already and more borrowing will make that worse.
The OBR is only reporting on whether the government meets its own rules - it can change the rules if it wishes. In fact, the rules were last changed less than 12 months ago.
Silly to scapegoat the OBR.
I suspect the Treasury's Green Book with it's bias towards expensive London property is a bigger part of the problem - but I don't get why the OBR isn't part of the Treasury - it should be merged into it and then quietly destroyed.
Which would you destroy, the OBR or the Treasury?
The Treasury should be abolished. Its mindset is that investment and economic growth are evils to be slain.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
I maintain that the bond market response to Truss had little to do with the actual spending figures & much more to do with the fact that the PM & Chancellor were proposing that we enter a magical land where tax cuts lead to GDP rises through some hitherto unknown economic mechanism.
Yes, Thatcher cut taxes, but she did so from a position of government income that made those tax cuts possible. GDP growth wasn’t a result of her tax cuts - it was the thing that /enabled/ her tax cut.
Magical economic thinking is not something that bond buyers find inspiring.
If a Chancellor wants to borrow money for specific purposes that people believe will increase GDP then that’s something that the bond markets will happily pour money into, at whatever rate they deem appropriate. Being able to spend those £ effectively means cutting the Gordian knot of our planning system which is making every infrastructure investment cost four times as much as it should do of course, but we’ve been over that part before.
Nuclear power plants? Sure. New motorways? Have at it. Tram systems for northern cities that double their commuter capacity & distance travelled to turn them into larger economic areas that reap the benefits of agglomeration? Do them all. etc etc.
What doesn’t work is announcing that you’re going to cut taxes & that economic growth will somehow magically follow. Could that happen, in some economic circumstances? Sure, maybe. But you have to make that case & convince the bond buyers that you’re right or else no one is going to be buying your bonds. Truss & Kwarteng did neither of these things.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Scrapping the OBR is just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LA! LA! LA!
The bad news is still that if you keep spending more than taxation for long enough, interest payments on debt will start swallowing all the money.
The trouble with the OBR, or troubles, are that first, its forecasts are invariably wrong; second, it takes forever to model budget proposals which is why Reeves' budgets are so late in the year; third, any attempt to remove the OBR from the process causes panic in the markets. Like most of George Osborne's wheezes, the OBR harms Britain and especially his own party – ask Liz Truss.
The Cameron and Osborne government damaged the country as much as the Truss government. They just did it more gradually so we didn’t notice at the time.
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
Knowing how the benefits bit of DWP works, I suspect a formal calculation can only be done by actually generating a payment, whereas a person with a calculator can actually generate the figure easily, if they know how many days' pension are owed.
Now that could be true. Their payments system is only set up to make monthly payments and not provide figures at will.
Anyway, it was just a bit of a trivial moan, although it seemed to fit this morning's discussion.
Sacking everyone won't change anything other than making it worse.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Some of this occurs in all organisations. These sorts of things happen in the private sector, they happen in the third sector. Life is complicated. So, yes, put in the work streamlining processes etc. There's no magic solution here.
I had a minor stroke a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed by the reaction and follow-up by the local hospital - detailed feedback to the GP were followed up a day later by a call from the consultant to resolve pending queries that I had. There was no sense of any hurry in my putting the questions during the call. Some aspects of the NHS are weighed down by procedural complexity abd waiting lists, but if something is urgent they really get their skates on.
The immigration issue was also very starkly clear - 90% of the staff were clearly not of UK descent, and the system would instantly collapse without immigrants and the next generation of immigrants.
1) Sorry to hear that Nick - customary understatement there but even a minor stroke isn't minor! Hope you're on the mend. 2) Glad the NHS treated you well. Your experience matches mine: in an emergency, the NHS is at its best. And the standard of care the NHS provides is often very good. The standard of customer service however is poor. It feels like the easier problem to solve, yet we never have. 3) The NHS would collapse without immigrants - this itself seems a bit of a flashing warning light? Ideally, we should be training our own population to do medical work - this isn't low-grade Brits-won't-do-it work, surely?
'Argentinians deliver electoral blow to Milei’s scandal-rocked government. President touted contest in Buenos Aires province – 40% of electorate – as ‘life or death battle’ but won only 34% of vote
Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, has suffered his worst electoral defeat since taking office, as he faces his administration’s most serious corruption scandal and signs that the economy is slowing.
In local legislative elections on Sunday for Buenos Aires province – home to almost 40% of the country’s electorate – the coalition led by the self-styled anarcho-capitalist was beaten by the opposition by 47% to 34%.'
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
Let's be clear
We can't afford to invest - therefore nothing will ever improve...
When we try and invest people throw trantrums until it becomes too much hassle. Just look at the attack on using machine transcription at a council last week.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
“In the UK, unemployed foreigners who don't speak English are given some of the most sought after housing in London, ahead of English people, and without paying the cost.
I can't get over how absurd this is. Unemployed foreigners could live almost anywhere in the world, yet the system ensures they occupy what is among the most important housing in the world”
Only if they are refugees given leave to remain, we need to ensure they are genuinely in fear of their lives. Minorities at risk from the Taliban who helped western forces and Ukranians from the Russian occupied territories yes, others need to be reviewed
Obviously, all cases are reviewed. On 2021-3 data, countries of origin with high rates of acceptance (>90%) were Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan. It's hard to argue that people are genuinely in fear of their lives coming from those countries. On the other hand, for people coming from India, the acceptance rate was only 6%.
Yes though even Syria no longer has Assad in charge and is largely ISIS free now and those fleeing war in Sudan or repression in Eritrea could be housed in other African nations more suitable nearby
“In the UK, unemployed foreigners who don't speak English are given some of the most sought after housing in London, ahead of English people, and without paying the cost.
I can't get over how absurd this is. Unemployed foreigners could live almost anywhere in the world, yet the system ensures they occupy what is among the most important housing in the world”
Only if they are refugees given leave to remain, we need to ensure they are genuinely in fear of their lives. Minorities at risk from the Taliban who helped western forces and Ukranians from the Russian occupied territories yes, others need to be reviewed
Obviously, all cases are reviewed. On 2021-3 data, countries of origin with high rates of acceptance (>90%) were Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan. It's hard to argue that people are genuinely in fear of their lives coming from those countries. On the other hand, for people coming from India, the acceptance rate was only 6%.
By your infantile logic we MUST let in every person that gets here from Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea
Besides being a ridiculous pull factor, that’s about 120 million people (rough guess in an uber). You want to let in 120 million people
People like you are insane and you must be driven out of public life and never given any responsibility for anything
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
Knowing how the benefits bit of DWP works, I suspect a formal calculation can only be done by actually generating a payment, whereas a person with a calculator can actually generate the figure easily, if they know how many days' pension are owed.
Now that could be true. Their payments system is only set up to make monthly payments and not provide figures at will.
Actually it is 4-weekly payments so I presume the day rate is 1/28 of his usual payment
The pitiful state of British politics in one headline
“Emily Thornberry joins deputy Labour leader race and says Gaza and wealth tax among her priorities – UK politics live”
So her priorities are
1. A faraway struggle which no one has solved for decades, which causes intense anger and division, and about which we can do precisely nothing
And
2. A new tax which will deeply damage the British economy just as such taxes have damaged every other economy, where attempted
1 is an issue that cost Labour a number of seats at the last election - while its irrelevant to us and impossible for us to fix, there does seem to be votes in it.
2 you can’t stop stupid and a number of Labour MPs and others think the tax will work. It’s only here where we’ve gone into great detail on it who know that all you can do is add something on property
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
Knowing how the benefits bit of DWP works, I suspect a formal calculation can only be done by actually generating a payment, whereas a person with a calculator can actually generate the figure easily, if they know how many days' pension are owed.
Now that could be true. Their payments system is only set up to make monthly payments and not provide figures at will.
Actually it is 4-weekly payments so I presume the day rate is 1/28 of his usual payment
It can be weekly, or 4-weekly, or (IIRC) calendar-monthly ...
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
It’s clear you’ve never worked in IT or the civil service
DWP and HMRC have carefully separated databases with access carefully monitored.
Remember all those people who hate the big databases the ID cards supposedly creates will letter saying you are owed money is coming from one that has the address and the figure to be paid comes from a completely different one
I've just retired from 30 years in IT. Maybe that's why I like exact figures where they are available rather than some fudge that has to be corrected later?
This is nothing to do with HMRC.
The figure to be paid is from DWP, they sent the letter telling me there was money to be paid, with a form to claim it. I only wanted to know how much.
So the letter has an intent you haven’t picked up on - which is that the amount involved is so small many people won’t be claiming it - so the letter is written the way it is intentionally to 1) reduce the work DWP need to do, and 2) save DWP a few quid and every penny helps
DWP will always assume the correct figure should be paid. The claim form is to ascertain to whom the payment should be made, given that the recipient is deceased, not to save money.
Some of this occurs in all organisations. These sorts of things happen in the private sector, they happen in the third sector. Life is complicated. So, yes, put in the work streamlining processes etc. There's no magic solution here.
I had a minor stroke a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed by the reaction and follow-up by the local hospital - detailed feedback to the GP were followed up a day later by a call from the consultant to resolve pending queries that I had. There was no sense of any hurry in my putting the questions during the call. Some aspects of the NHS are weighed down by procedural complexity abd waiting lists, but if something is urgent they really get their skates on.
The immigration issue was also very starkly clear - 90% of the staff were clearly not of UK descent, and the system would instantly collapse without immigrants and the next generation of immigrants.
1) Sorry to hear that Nick - customary understatement there but even a minor stroke isn't minor! Hope you're on the mend. 2) Glad the NHS treated you well. Your experience matches mine: in an emergency, the NHS is at its best. And the standard of care the NHS provides is often very good. The standard of customer service however is poor. It feels like the easier problem to solve, yet we never have. 3) The NHS would collapse without immigrants - this itself seems a bit of a flashing warning light? Ideally, we should be training our own population to do medical work - this isn't low-grade Brits-won't-do-it work, surely?
It costs a lot of money to train doctors in the UK, cheaper to import them rather than investing the millions required to open more university medical courses. And even if we did that it’s a 5-7 year lead time before the students are qualified which means you are spending money where the benefit won’t be felt until the next government is in power
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
It’s clear you’ve never worked in IT or the civil service
DWP and HMRC have carefully separated databases with access carefully monitored.
Remember all those people who hate the big databases the ID cards supposedly creates will letter saying you are owed money is coming from one that has the address and the figure to be paid comes from a completely different one
I've just retired from 30 years in IT. Maybe that's why I like exact figures where they are available rather than some fudge that has to be corrected later?
This is nothing to do with HMRC.
The figure to be paid is from DWP, they sent the letter telling me there was money to be paid, with a form to claim it. I only wanted to know how much.
So the letter has an intent you haven’t picked up on - which is that the amount involved is so small many people won’t be claiming it - so the letter is written the way it is intentionally to 1) reduce the work DWP need to do, and 2) save DWP a few quid and every penny helps
DWP will always assume the correct figure should be paid. The claim form is to ascertain to whom the payment should be made, given that the recipient is deceased, not to save money.
Also, often with the four-weeklies money is *owed* to DWP, so they want every milligram of flesh. Happened with my mum, though I can't remember how quick they were with it.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
You seem to be inviting me to question Child A's scruples
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
Knowing how the benefits bit of DWP works, I suspect a formal calculation can only be done by actually generating a payment, whereas a person with a calculator can actually generate the figure easily, if they know how many days' pension are owed.
Now that could be true. Their payments system is only set up to make monthly payments and not provide figures at will.
Actually it is 4-weekly payments so I presume the day rate is 1/28 of his usual payment
It can be weekly, or 4-weekly, or (IIRC) calendar-monthly ...
The default is 4-weekly. I believe you can request weekly or fortnightly but not monthly. The payment system assumes payments will be made on the same day of the week, which is linked to your national insurance number.
(As an aside, UC is paid monthly so it can be done, but State Pension seems to be firmly linked to legacy systems which are weekly/fortnightly)
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
I suspect Reform will replace the OBR with something called, say, The Immigrant Research Group, which will calculate how much of the extra required spending can be funded simply by expelling immigrants. And the answer will be all of it.
@ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service
Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.
For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.
This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.
In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.
Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.
Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".
Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.
So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.
I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.
Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).
Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?
FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicitly estimated. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).
Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.
The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.
If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.
If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.
Edit: I forget HMRC's wording when they accept the proibate, but they basically say"okay, you've signed this, and that's done, but you have to let us know if anything happens to change the levels of tax due"
Thanks, yes - I expect an estimate will suffice but it would be nice to get things right. It just leaves more things to tie up when you'd much rather just get it over with.
I don't understand why they would send such a letter though - it seems to be deliberately unhelpful.
Maybe there is some legal nicety that I am missing, but it just gives the impression that one department doesn't talk to another. Who and what are these processes for?
I know the feeling, but -
Also: as well as the previous PS which you may or many not have missed, I'd emphasise that there are inevitably loose ends anyway, so it's not as if you won't have to deal with HMRC after the grant of probate. You will usually need to get in touch with HMRC anyway, to deal with tax during the executry period, eg dividends or bank interest that accrued after demise until the accounts were closed. That isn't part of the IHT calculation for the probate valuation (made as if on the day of demise) but forms part of the estate to account to beneficiaries, of course. But in my experience that's usually very simple.
As for keeping the probate valuation updated, I just updated the Excel spreadsheet I used for the probate application with anything new, using red ink, so I could keep track of the pluses and minuses and whether it changed the IHT. It didn't, in my cases, but was ready to use if HMRC ever asked.
Well, the good news is I now have a figure, although they will not send it in writing.
I rang the phone number on the letter, and was told it was the wrong part of DWP (not the 'bereavement service') and was given a different phone number. I rang the new phone number and got through to someone who after a helpful 5 minute discussion gave me a figure.
So that was 2 unnecessary phone calls.
None of the DWP staff were slacking or not doing their allocated job, but a bit of investment or thought in the process and it could have saved 10 minutes of their time and at least that of mine. Multiply that enough times...
As has been pointed out, sacking everyone immediately won't actually help. For a while it actually needs excess so there can be a few lazy sods that go round asking why the hell they are having to do X and them having access to someone with the capacity to fix it. 100% busy people are a hindrance to change.
I’m sorry I’m at a loss as to where time could be saved.
You called a generic helpline number where after confirming what you wanted they gave you the appropriate number
After a 5 minute chat that you said was helpful while they worked out what you wanted and calculated the figure they gave you the number
Yet you say it was a waste of 10 minutes.
Trust me it wasn’t because no department is going to put everything on line because that requires way, way more and money l then someone checking what you actually need and giving you a quick estimated figure to use.
If you want to be scared I can tell you how much creating a gov.uk service costs and it’s £x00,000 minimum
Compare that to a phone call that cost probably £5 to process and then work out if that call occurs 10,000 a year because unless it does there are better uses for automation
By putting the actual figure I needed on the original letter, no phone calls would have been needed. By putting the correct phone number on the original letter, only one phone call would have been needed.
I doubt either change would cost £x00,000.
[I'm aware this might not be the best example, but it is the one I encountered today]
Yep that’s a bad example because adding an address to a template letter isn’t difficult.
Adding the figure to that letter is a whole pile of work with date implications when I would have just added £1000 to my probate calculation, flagged it as estimated and got on with the task in hand of estimating the full estate value
How can it be a big pile of work when
a) The letter said we owe you money b) The person on the phone was able to tell me how much straight away
Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about this - as I say, it was only what I encountered today.
Knowing how the benefits bit of DWP works, I suspect a formal calculation can only be done by actually generating a payment, whereas a person with a calculator can actually generate the figure easily, if they know how many days' pension are owed.
Now that could be true. Their payments system is only set up to make monthly payments and not provide figures at will.
Actually it is 4-weekly payments so I presume the day rate is 1/28 of his usual payment
It can be weekly, or 4-weekly, or (IIRC) calendar-monthly ...
The default is 4-weekly. I believe you can request weekly or fortnightly but not monthly. The payment system assumes payments will be made on the same day of the week, which is linked to your national insurance number.
(As an aside, UC is paid monthly so it can be done, but State Pension seems to be firmly linked to legacy systems which are weekly/fortnightly)
Pensions were originally paid fortnightly because most people were paid weekly and things worked on that cycle.
UC is far more recent an is also tied to HMRC in ways other benefits aren’t
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
How did Child A and Child B select their apples?
Were they chosen completely at random and how was the hole-free status discovered?
These Boris leaks in The Guardian today look absolutely toxic. The implication is that Johnson was personally corrupt and enriched himself while in public office. If that story sticks, it's not just the ministerial code that has been breached, but the law. Let's see if the story has wings, but the optics are appalling.
It’s toxic but for another reasons
The accusations are marginal.
They are (from the article)
1. He asked a Saudi official to give a pitch to MbS 2. He was paid a fee by a hedge fund after meeting Venezuela’s PM 3. While in government he met Peter Thiel 4. He hosted an event in Downing Street that seems like it was in breach of lockdown rules and was to “honour” the person that refurbished the flat 5. He earned £5m from making speeches
And in the intro they talk about Greensill (which was genuinely appalling) and complain that he is “publicly subsidised” for claiming the allowance the state pays for office support.
The only ones that might possibly be open to criticism *for the accusation that the Guardian is making* (3&4 could easily be criticised for other things) are 1&2.
Basically they are trying to throw chaff in the air to diminish the damage to Labour caused by Rayner
This sort of journalism is irresponsible and toxic to public trust (such as it is) in politicians.
This has nothing to do with a tit-for-tat retaliation over Rayner.
It is completely remarkable that those who cheered Rayner's defenestration are defending this as either lies or "Boris will be Boris". Will the broadcast media take any of this up? No.
I still believe the most egregious act by any post war Minister, Profumo included, was a Foreign Secretary throwing off his minders to attend a party run by a KGB grandee. A story which at the time it occurred barely raised an eyebrow.
So, I wonder if, this morning, the UK media is parked outside Nigel Farage's house in Clacton?
Most people seem to know where it is now.
Has there been graffiti sprayed across the front walls, as there was for Angela Rayner?
Or, as I suspect, we have a misogynistic, two-tier media system that will happily hound a working class woman into resignation … but are happy for a multimillionaire, mass property owning tycoon, to get off scot-free.
Answers on a postcard to Nigel's not-house in Clacton.
Presumably dodge the Stamp Duty second home/overseas resident surcharge.
As I have mentioned before, lots of MPs have 2 or more properties. Rayner won't be the only one.
Meanwhile across the pond, Trump is using second houses both marked as main home to jail those who impeached him. Populists - devoid of principles - like using the argument every way in their interest.
On topic - Farage doesn’t believe he can be in before 2029, the populist/fascist tactic is to make out a failed and damaging government is squatting in office in defiance of the popular will of the people.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
Reform also announced that they wanted to bin Northern PowerRail which given it’s a joint venture at the moment between Liverpool and Manchester’s mayors seems a bit of a reach.
All I heard from the announcement is start work immediately so it can’t be scrapped alongside we don’t want to invest in the future the 1970s were a great decade
Can I just say - very much against the grain of my character - that I’m brilliant?
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
Reform also announced that they wanted to bin Northern PowerRail which given it’s a joint venture at the moment between Liverpool and Manchester’s mayors seems a bit of a reach.
All I heard from the announcement is start work immediately so it can’t be scrapped alongside we don’t want to invest in the future the 1970s were a great decade
Some of the stuff they come out with is so stupid. Their argument for binning NPR was to spend money on "train services that people actually use". That kind of logic implies you should never invest in anything, because by definition if something hasn't been built yet people can't be using it already. They are utterly nihilistic.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
I don't think they'll be able to and maintain market credibility.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
I don't think they'll be able to and maintain market credibility.
Which will be our problem. Big time. As the economy finally goes down the chute.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
I don't think they'll be able to and maintain market credibility.
They won't enjoy any market credibility anyway, not unless their economic policies start to look less back of the fag packet based.
Can I just say - very much against the grain of my character - that I’m brilliant?
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
Can I just say - very much against the grain of my character - that I’m brilliant?
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
That’s incredible. I’m incredible
Certainly makes up for the one third snafu earlier.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
Have all these "independent institutions" helped improve quality of life for the average person over the last 15 years or so?
I see there's a story about Boris Johnson and British troops in Ukraine.
Every media outlet is reporting this as, "Boris Johnson says that only Western troops in Ukraine after a ceasefire will force Putin to change his aggressive ways," except for one.
GBNews reports it as, "Boris Johnson warns about British troops being deployed to Ukraine."
Can I just say - very much against the grain of my character - that I’m brilliant?
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
That’s incredible. I’m incredible
You are, alas, only too credible. Not the fantasy escapism I am looking for.
Can I just say - very much against the grain of my character - that I’m brilliant?
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
That’s incredible. I’m incredible
You should enter one of those how many jelly beans in a jar contest. I bet you'd win.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
I don't think they'll be able to and maintain market credibility.
So how do they make the numbers add up to retain market credibility with the OBR marking their homework?
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
Have all these "independent institutions" helped improve quality of life for the average person over the last 15 years or so?
Presumably their existence has given the markets confidence that the figures presented by the government are neutral and can be trusted, thus leading to lower borrowing rates for the government which is a positive for the population.
Look what happened when Truss didn't bother with them and the trust the markets then had in her plan.
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum
Learn to read. I said Farage does not understand FPTP elections; contrasted those with his success at European elections; and illustrated same with his taking Reform to be our third party in terms of votes but whose MPs could share a taxi.
The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
Have all these "independent institutions" helped improve quality of life for the average person over the last 15 years or so?
Can I just say - very much against the grain of my character - that I’m brilliant?
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
Have all these "independent institutions" helped improve quality of life for the average person over the last 15 years or so?
Depends what the alternative may have been. Look at previous responses to financial crashes. Look at what happened in Spain, or Greece.
There was lots wrong over the last 15 years or so, but it really could have been quite a lot worse. One of the dismal curiosities of our times is why people who have broadly come out on top in the game of life are reaching for solutions that are normally the last resort of the truly desperate.
Can I just say - very much against the grain of my character - that I’m brilliant?
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
That’s incredible. I’m incredible
You should enter one of those how many jelly beans in a jar contest. I bet you'd win.
I might do exactly that. Spend the next few years wandering Europe doing competitions to “guess numbers” and winning literally dozens of pounds or maybe toys
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum
Learn to read. I said Farage does not understand FPTP elections; contrasted those with his success at European elections; and illustrated same with his taking Reform to be our third party in terms of votes but whose MPs could share a taxi.
The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.
You don’t think he’s smart enough to work that out?
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
No, the OBR is the only good idea George Osborne ever had. Scrap the OBR and you can add 100bp plus to bond yields.
Yup look at what happened to Liz Truss when she chose to ignore it. If Labour attempt to scrap the OBR it will be a very strong signal to markets that they intend to blow out the budget and gilt prices will crash. Indeed, when it looked like Starmer might have been thinking about replacing the useless Reeves with an even bigger spender and she cried in parliament we had a preview of what would happen if the government attempted to scrap the OBR.
Additionally as we head towards a likely Reform or Reform led government, the OBR is a body we will fundamentally need to keep them in check and not destroy the economy with massive spending rises and tax cuts like Liz Truss attempted or Trump is doing in the US.
Reform would get rid of the OBR for sure. Reform does not believe in independent institutions, scrutiny or checks on executive action. Do they want the bean counters anywhere near their uncosted tax and spending measures, pointing out the inaccuracies and bare faced lies in their fiscal programme? Of course they don't.
Have all these "independent institutions" helped improve quality of life for the average person over the last 15 years or so?
Yes, the OBR has kept a lid on gilt yields among a lot of turbulence which in turn helps keep mortgage rates lower.
As @OnlyLivingBoy said, it's one of just a handful of good decisions from Osborne.
Can someone smart (or someone stupid) explain what this Trump to Epstein card is supposed to mean? It's barely English.
There are some disturbing interpretations of the "code" on Reddit, if you're so inclined.
They all seem to have decided that he's a nonce in advance and then fitted everything around that (or a small number are just as derangedly explaining how it's a setup). I was hoping for something credible and it's interesting the media don't seem to have provided one. Maybe they're just as confused as me.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum
Learn to read. I said Farage does not understand FPTP elections; contrasted those with his success at European elections; and illustrated same with his taking Reform to be our third party in terms of votes but whose MPs could share a taxi.
The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.
You don’t think he’s smart enough to work that out?
we had a set of FPTP elections in may. Reform did fine.
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum
Learn to read. I said Farage does not understand FPTP elections; contrasted those with his success at European elections; and illustrated same with his taking Reform to be our third party in terms of votes but whose MPs could share a taxi.
The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.
But that's exactly what the LibDems used to do, their vote was too evenly distributed. In places they had some local momentum, and won seats as a result. In the last election they managed to get I think a broadly proportionate share of seats, as they have now managed to build up a concentration of votes eg formerly Tory-voting areas in Hampshire and Surrey.
At the next election Reform will have the data to concentrate on areas they have a chance. It remains to be seen whether they have built up the resources to do so.
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
If we want to spend more, raise taxes to pay for it. Or cut other spending.
We already have 100% debt to GDP. Interest spending exceeds that of education or criminal justice already and more borrowing will make that worse.
The OBR is only reporting on whether the government meets its own rules - it can change the rules if it wishes. In fact, the rules were last changed less than 12 months ago.
Silly to scapegoat the OBR.
We're chained to it politically. And you're right about debt - it's a real problem.
In business when you want to cut expenditure you usually invest. A new computer system to reduce opex. New fridges in a convenience store to cut energy bills. We need to *significantly* cut our operating expenses as a nation. We need to invest in new things to save us money but we can't do so because political stupidity and OBR rules.
We can't raise taxes without tanking economic output further. We can't keep borrowing to throw money on bonfires like the NHS. But to fix things like the NHS we need to invest a little more on the replacements to then save significantly.
Again I make the point - we already spend more by not spending the money than we save. You can't just cut the emergency spending created by the existing cuts - that will cost even more. So we need to borrow to invest, and gain the return on that investment. You know, capitalism.
Our problem is economic wazzockry and the OBR has become the knot at the heart of this.
I think (not sure) what you are saying is that we need to spend (a lot?) less operationally in order that the borrowing we already make (about £150 bn annually) is used on effective investment instead of borrowing to pay day to day bills and interest payments.
In what way is the OBR stopping the government adjusting its priorities in such a way?
And while increasing the use of borrowing for more effective investment, what and where are the operational cuts coming from? They have to be large.
We are all familiar with retail's great line 'The More You Spend the More You Save' but you need to cash this out in a bit of detail. I think this would be top of the liost of things the PM and the CoE would like to know.
I've thrown "scrap the OBR" as code for the way we do everything when it comes to budgets. Its politics at fault more than the OBR.
My point is this. We simultaneously have record spending on the NHS and cash-starved frontline services delivering medical care. The NHS is a bonfire and tipping more and more cash onto it cannot be the solution, when all that makes it way to the bottom is ash. We need to reform it and my broad concept is scrap much of the administrative structures.
In my old home town we had a choice of two GP practices run by two separate trusts. In the same health centre. With their own separate management teams. Duplication of administration. Same with my old school, now at the heart of a 9 school trust spending literal millions on management as they negotiate tiny deals with mega corps.
It will undoubtedly cost money to scrap all of these false market structures but will then save money. Just as training and hiring teachers will cost money short term then save as we need less temps and results improve. Same with actually giving councils the money to provide sufficient services so that emergency spend mopping up the mess can be saved - not cleaning drains etc.
Sane thing with migration. If we don't want Fillipino staff in the NHS then train people. If we don't want eastern European staff in hospitality then train people. Invest now in skills and training. If we want to put criminals in jail then invest in court capacity and new jails. But treasury orthodoxy backed by OBR reports say we can't afford these things, so Britain continues to crumble and fail.
Its absurd.
Do we have record spending on the NHS? No, it's lower than the two peak COVID-19 years. But, yes, apart from COVID-19, health spending has continually risen faster than inflation.
Why is this? (1) The population is ageing. Older people generate more healthcare costs. (2) Healthcare inflation runs higher than regular inflation, because we keep inventing new treatments, mainly drugs, which is also why life expectancy has continually risen since 1925. Saying, "The NHS is a bonfire and tipping more and more cash onto it cannot be the solution" is just wishful thinking. You're ignoring the reasons for increased spending.
That's not to say that reform is a bad idea or savings can't be made on administration. But don't fall into this lazy messaging that NHS costs are only higher because of inefficiencies.
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Why "ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation"? The party does believe in proportional representation, but you gotta fight elections under the existing system. Reform UK's failure to understand FPTP doesn't somehow make the LibDems' support for PR fictitious.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum
Learn to read. I said Farage does not understand FPTP elections; contrasted those with his success at European elections; and illustrated same with his taking Reform to be our third party in terms of votes but whose MPs could share a taxi.
The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.
But with a 5-party system now in England, and 6 parties in Scotland/Wales, with the possibility of another from Corbyn and Sultana, the bar to win a FPTP election is much lower.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
There was a comment earlier on that “mandelson is obviously not guilty of anything, so people really did visit Epstein just for a good time, nothing naughty”
Er what? I presume this is based on the fact Mandelson is gay?
I’m absolutely not accusing Peter M of anything (I’m a fan, I wish he was prime minister rather than Skyr) but I’m not sure we can be so glibly certain of the innocence of anyone so closely associated with Epstein. Mandelson called Jeff his “best pal”
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
I’d like to see the back of Mandelson but I just don’t buy it . There surely would have been some evidence there and someone would have come forward.
Starmer apparently calling his party the 'Patriots' and Farage is a plastic Patriot
Why does he continue to mimic Farage and the right ?
There was a time, not so long ago, when people on here, who are now Starmtroopers, used to say ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel’
Using patriotism as an attack or a virtue is almost meaningless anyway ; it means whatever people feel it means to them so is a kind of strawman
Enoch Powell said that he’d fight for England even if we had a communist government; that kind of patriotism, going completely against your own beliefs for your country, seems a bit much. If we had an Islamist government now, and were at war with a Christian country, I think I’d want us beaten. Interesting dilemma
If real patirotism entails giving away strategic bases and paying billions to rent them back, I think most will be tempted to try the plastic variety.
Comments
The first difficulty is that of relative party/voter turnout. Is 2029 to be an election when usually non voters turn out in droves for Reform (or of course some other party)? Will usual trad party voters stay at home?
The second is translating vote share, once you have decided which methodology about relative turnout gives you the most reliable one, into seats.
Most people seem to think that Baxtering is for losers - and perhaps it is - but I doubt if there is a simple, or indeed any, formula which will help turn votes into seat numbers in the next GE. I am very happy to be wrong about this.
Can anyone enlighten me?
After EU bureaucrats and asylum seekers who will be next to be the cause of every conceivable ill?
DWP and HMRC have carefully separated databases with access carefully monitored.
Remember all those people who hate the big databases the ID cards supposedly creates well that letter saying you are owed money is coming from one that has the address and the figure to be paid comes from a completely different one.
Now imagine there are 500 or so template letters that need to be updated and connected to a second database - the one you’ve received is probably not that high on the priority list if it’s on it at all
When we're into 2029, with sufficiently large sample sizes, we might be able to tease out the effects of tactical voting in different constituencies, do some sort of MRP.
Lucy Powell to stand
There are many complications - Labour will be burdened like Sunak 24 in 'defending everything' whereas the Tories will be able to refocus on their best prospects for 'holding on' (and they are still raising most £££ last 2 Quarters). LDs have a solid block to work, defend and try to advance from. Green/YP insurgency in the cities, and where are Reform advancing hardest? Watch LE results for this (spoiler - the further north you go......).
This is nothing to do with HMRC.
The figure to be paid is from DWP, they sent the letter telling me there was money to be paid, with a form to claim it. I only wanted to know how much.
The immigration issue was also very starkly clear - 90% of the staff were clearly not of UK descent, and the system would instantly collapse without immigrants and the next generation of immigrants.
My point is this. We simultaneously have record spending on the NHS and cash-starved frontline services delivering medical care. The NHS is a bonfire and tipping more and more cash onto it cannot be the solution, when all that makes it way to the bottom is ash. We need to reform it and my broad concept is scrap much of the administrative structures.
In my old home town we had a choice of two GP practices run by two separate trusts. In the same health centre. With their own separate management teams. Duplication of administration. Same with my old school, now at the heart of a 9 school trust spending literal millions on management as they negotiate tiny deals with mega corps.
It will undoubtedly cost money to scrap all of these false market structures but will then save money. Just as training and hiring teachers will cost money short term then save as we need less temps and results improve. Same with actually giving councils the money to provide sufficient services so that emergency spend mopping up the mess can be saved - not cleaning drains etc.
Sane thing with migration. If we don't want Fillipino staff in the NHS then train people. If we don't want eastern European staff in hospitality then train people. Invest now in skills and training. If we want to put criminals in jail then invest in court capacity and new jails. But treasury orthodoxy backed by OBR reports say we can't afford these things, so Britain continues to crumble and fail.
Its absurd.
Yes, Thatcher cut taxes, but she did so from a position of government income that made those tax cuts possible. GDP growth wasn’t a result of her tax cuts - it was the thing that /enabled/ her tax cut.
Magical economic thinking is not something that bond buyers find inspiring.
If a Chancellor wants to borrow money for specific purposes that people believe will increase GDP then that’s something that the bond markets will happily pour money into, at whatever rate they deem appropriate. Being able to spend those £ effectively means cutting the Gordian knot of our planning system which is making every infrastructure investment cost four times as much as it should do of course, but we’ve been over that part before.
Nuclear power plants? Sure. New motorways? Have at it. Tram systems for northern cities that double their commuter capacity & distance travelled to turn them into larger economic areas that reap the benefits of agglomeration? Do them all. etc etc.
What doesn’t work is announcing that you’re going to cut taxes & that economic growth will somehow magically follow. Could that happen, in some economic circumstances? Sure, maybe. But you have to make that case & convince the bond buyers that you’re right or else no one is going to be buying your bonds. Truss & Kwarteng did neither of these things.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Anyway, it was just a bit of a trivial moan, although it seemed to fit this morning's discussion.
Sacking everyone won't change anything other than making it worse.
Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet:
Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree.
Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.”
Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag.
You may take one apple from one child’s bag.
From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
2) Glad the NHS treated you well. Your experience matches mine: in an emergency, the NHS is at its best. And the standard of care the NHS provides is often very good. The standard of customer service however is poor. It feels like the easier problem to solve, yet we never have.
3) The NHS would collapse without immigrants - this itself seems a bit of a flashing warning light? Ideally, we should be training our own population to do medical work - this isn't low-grade Brits-won't-do-it work, surely?
Assuming she makes it onto the ballot.
“Emily Thornberry joins deputy Labour leader race and says Gaza and wealth tax among her priorities – UK politics live”
So her priorities are
1. A faraway struggle which no one has solved for decades, which causes intense anger and division, and about which we can do precisely nothing
And
2. A new tax which will deeply damage the British economy just as such taxes have damaged every other economy, where attempted
Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, has suffered his worst electoral defeat since taking office, as he faces his administration’s most serious corruption scandal and signs that the economy is slowing.
In local legislative elections on Sunday for Buenos Aires province – home to almost 40% of the country’s electorate – the coalition led by the self-styled anarcho-capitalist was beaten by the opposition by 47% to 34%.'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/08/argentina-election-javier-milei
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum
Besides being a ridiculous pull factor, that’s about 120 million people (rough guess in an uber). You want to let in 120 million people
People like you are insane and you must be driven out of public life and never given any responsibility for anything
2 you can’t stop stupid and a number of Labour MPs and others think the tax will work. It’s only here where we’ve gone into great detail on it who know that all you can do is add something on property
(As an aside, UC is paid monthly so it can be done, but State Pension seems to be firmly linked to legacy systems which are weekly/fortnightly)
UC is far more recent an is also tied to HMRC in ways other benefits aren’t
Were they chosen completely at random and how was the hole-free status discovered?
Joe Rogan laughs at Biden…..until he realizes Biden was quoting Trump
https://x.com/sunsungirly/status/1964720357514137761
On topic - Farage doesn’t believe he can be in before 2029, the populist/fascist tactic is to make out a failed and damaging government is squatting in office in defiance of the popular will of the people.
All I heard from the announcement is start work immediately so it can’t be scrapped alongside we don’t want to invest in the future the 1970s were a great decade
I guessed in an earlier comment that the combined population of Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan was “120 million” (all of whom @bondegezou is eager to let live in the UK). But I plucked that figure out of my Cornish butt - it was a wild guess using my rough knowledge of these countries
I just checked. The true figure is 124.7 million people
That’s incredible. I’m incredible
In what parallel universe does Lucy Powell appearing on the media day in and out help Labour's massive narrative/communication issue?
Am I missing something?
Every media outlet is reporting this as, "Boris Johnson says that only Western troops in Ukraine after a ceasefire will force Putin to change his aggressive ways," except for one.
GBNews reports it as, "Boris Johnson warns about British troops being deployed to Ukraine."
An interesting and revealing difference.
Look what happened when Truss didn't bother with them and the trust the markets then had in her plan.
The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.
Basildon Reform UK councillor arrested for harassment.
There was lots wrong over the last 15 years or so, but it really could have been quite a lot worse. One of the dismal curiosities of our times is why people who have broadly come out on top in the game of life are reaching for solutions that are normally the last resort of the truly desperate.
As @OnlyLivingBoy said, it's one of just a handful of good decisions from Osborne.
At the next election Reform will have the data to concentrate on areas they have a chance. It remains to be seen whether they have built up the resources to do so.
Why is this? (1) The population is ageing. Older people generate more healthcare costs. (2) Healthcare inflation runs higher than regular inflation, because we keep inventing new treatments, mainly drugs, which is also why life expectancy has continually risen since 1925. Saying, "The NHS is a bonfire and tipping more and more cash onto it cannot be the solution" is just wishful thinking. You're ignoring the reasons for increased spending.
That's not to say that reform is a bad idea or savings can't be made on administration. But don't fall into this lazy messaging that NHS costs are only higher because of inefficiencies.
There was a comment earlier on that “mandelson is obviously not guilty of anything, so people really did visit Epstein just for a good time, nothing naughty”
Er what? I presume this is based on the fact Mandelson is gay?
I’m absolutely not accusing Peter M of anything (I’m a fan, I wish he was prime minister rather than Skyr) but I’m not sure we can be so glibly certain of the innocence of anyone so closely associated with Epstein. Mandelson called Jeff his “best pal”
On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps.
• One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.”
• Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back.
If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?