I'd have a bit more time for Mandelson if he said something like this:
"I knew Jeffrey for x years. We were friends, and I enjoyed his company. I never saw any sign or indication of abuse, and during the trial I felt like a good friend was being subjected to a witch-hunt. After conviction, I stood by him. This was a mistake, and over time I have heard the compelling stories of the many victims, and realise that I, like many others, were taken for a fool."
Yes, that would work. There are plenty of politicians going around saying Lucy Letby is innocent, so believing a convicted crim is the victim of a miscarriage of justice is hardly outlandish. Sir Keir and Mandy should have gone with something like that. Did Sir Keir simply panic?
This is such tosh
Look at the birthday book. It is 50 pages (or more) of cringey innuendo - complete with drawings and photos - all about Jeff’s amusing desires - yum yum - for large amounts of young women, often clearly underage. It has actual drawings of him enticing schoolgirls
There are also jokes about him sharing these pleasures - yum yum - with all his many best friends. I find it hard to believe that Lord Yum Yum was entirely unaware of all this. He went to pedo island several times. Presumably all Epstein’s “best friends” read the birthday book and chortled
Mandelson got fired over the post-conviction emails because those are undeniable facts; that doesn’t mean he was innocently ignorant of everything else
The birthday book was compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell from separate contributions. There is no reason to suppose Mandelson (or any contributor) saw the whole thing. If Mandelson was aware of, or was involved in, any of the sexual shenanigans rather than just power, influence and free holidays, then there may well be evidence in the email cache because it is clear from what we have seen already that Mandelson did not imagine it would see the light of day.
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
The implication, or inference, is she bought the house with his money to duck tax. Yes.
The Neidle tweet only seems to refer to property in France (due to way owned) not counting for her for additional property owned purposes under UK law. So she definitely doesn't owe any extra stamp duty.
But the question of whether it's really Farage's money and he's tax-efficiently put the house in her name remains.
(Note, I've no problem with that - family member has just bought a house with, partly, partner's money but it's in his name only as partner already owns another house - but it is a bit hypocritical to go after Rayner on her arrangements if that is the case.)
Did he go after Rayner ?
He did.
Link ? Specifics ?
Here’s this tweet from last Thursday which effectively called her a liar, I put in a PB header, it sealed the deal for me that she was a gonner
In short if I were in the public eye I would not want him focussing on my tax affairs.
Rayner's gone so it is academic but the whole thing could easily have been a misunderstanding about what constitutes taking legal advice about tax. She got advice from lawyers, she got advice about tax. The lay understanding is different from the professional.
I kinda thought that myself. The advisor on the Ministerial Code seemed to me to take a very legalistic approach. She was told twice what the tax should be but both times she was told to take expert advice. I think she had no doubt in her mind this was her only property and that the other property belongs to her son's trust. I think anyone would think that because its basically true. The technicalities by which she could still have access to her son's property are there for his care, not so she has a financial claim on it.
I was more concerned that her interest in the trust property seems to have been bought for more than its worth at the cost of the fund to allow her the deposit. That didn't feel right to me but that was not the basis of the decision. I think she was hard done by.
And we’ve covered that last week as well. The legal team that also manage the trust and the RICS survey have their professional reputation attached to the valuation so I think there are valid reasons in which it can be justified. Unlike the examples the Telegraph used which definitely wouldn’t be valid on a professional basis
A property which generates a rent of 8-9,000 euros a month is likely worth a couple of million euros. So, it's entirely possible that her family has the money to pay for the house in Clacton.
I'd have a bit more time for Mandelson if he said something like this:
"I knew Jeffrey for x years. We were friends, and I enjoyed his company. I never saw any sign or indication of abuse, and during the trial I felt like a good friend was being subjected to a witch-hunt. After conviction, I stood by him. This was a mistake, and over time I have heard the compelling stories of the many victims, and realise that I, like many others, were taken for a fool."
Yes, that would work. There are plenty of politicians going around saying Lucy Letby is innocent, so believing a convicted crim is the victim of a miscarriage of justice is hardly outlandish. Sir Keir and Mandy should have gone with something like that. Did Sir Keir simply panic?
This is such tosh
Look at the birthday book. It is 50 pages (or more) of cringey innuendo - complete with drawings and photos - all about Jeff’s amusing desires - yum yum - for large amounts of young women, often clearly underage. It has actual drawings of him enticing schoolgirls
There are also jokes about him sharing these pleasures - yum yum - with all his many best friends. I find it hard to believe that Lord Yum Yum was entirely unaware of all this. He went to pedo island several times. Presumably all Epstein’s “best friends” read the birthday book and chortled
Mandelson got fired over the post-conviction emails because those are undeniable facts; that doesn’t mean he was innocently ignorant of everything else
The birthday book was compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell from separate contributions. There is no reason to suppose Mandelson (or any contributor) saw the whole thing. If Mandelson was aware of, or was involved in, any of the sexual shenanigans rather than just power, influence and free holidays, then there may well be evidence in the email cache because it is clear from what we have seen already that Mandelson did not imagine it would see the light of day.
I think one thing that has become crystal clear from the emails is that Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction was fully merited. So a pardon is probably inevitable.
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
The implication, or inference, is she bought the house with his money to duck tax. Yes.
The Neidle tweet only seems to refer to property in France (due to way owned) not counting for her for additional property owned purposes under UK law. So she definitely doesn't owe any extra stamp duty.
But the question of whether it's really Farage's money and he's tax-efficiently put the house in her name remains.
(Note, I've no problem with that - family member has just bought a house with, partly, partner's money but it's in his name only as partner already owns another house - but it is a bit hypocritical to go after Rayner on her arrangements if that is the case.)
Did he go after Rayner ?
He did.
Link ? Specifics ?
Here’s this tweet from last Thursday which effectively called her a liar, I put in a PB header, it sealed the deal for me that she was a gonner
In short if I were in the public eye I would not want him focussing on my tax affairs.
Rayner's gone so it is academic but the whole thing could easily have been a misunderstanding about what constitutes taking legal advice about tax. She got advice from lawyers, she got advice about tax. The lay understanding is different from the professional.
The other step, which seems not have been taken, where there is a complex situation is to get on the record to the HMRC all the relevant facts. Once you do that you may get a decision which is nice for you; if you don't your lawyers and accountants can argue it out for you. Our system is such that the HMRC are never the final court of appeal over who owes what tax.
Failure to fully inform the HMRC (on the record, in writing) is more egregious than failure to take advice.
Baroness May said: “I do not believe the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people from being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others.”
Theresa May, at least in that extract, does not say what safeguards would satisfy her. This is a debate conducted by ideologues throwing up chaff in support of their own prejudices.
Claiming that you can only criticise if you also present a solution is a well known failure in philosophical argument. Since the Ancient Greeks.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
Ignore I reread the post - but personally I wouldn't assume HMRC will do anything in a sane timeframe but will charge interest if they have any chance of claiming you owed money and hadn't paid it.
Baroness May said: “I do not believe the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people from being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others.”
Theresa May, at least in that extract, does not say what safeguards would satisfy her. This is a debate conducted by ideologues throwing up chaff in support of their own prejudices.
Claiming that you can only criticise if you also present a solution is a well known failure in philosophical argument. Since the Ancient Greeks.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
What I am saying is this whole debate has not been conducted in good faith.
In the US Ambassador Derby, I would go for putting Dame Karen Pierce back - maybe officially as an "interim", but in practice for the remainder of Trump's term, and maybe longer.
1 - She is well-regarded, afaics by everyone. 2 - She is formidable, but unorthodox. 3 - She was there for the last year of Trump's previous term. 4 - She has extensive contacts.
Baroness May said: “I do not believe the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people from being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others.”
Theresa May, at least in that extract, does not say what safeguards would satisfy her. This is a debate conducted by ideologues throwing up chaff in support of their own prejudices.
Claiming that you can only criticise if you also present a solution is a well known failure in philosophical argument. Since the Ancient Greeks.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
This is partly true. In philosophy the thought that there isn't a solution is the usual starting point in many areas. Indeed, once solutions to things are widely agreed, that area tends to cease being philosophy and becomes a branch of science.
Though this is true of lots of interesting questions in epistemology, and the metaphysics of universals and many others, no-one is suggesting that these fields are much use in a practical realm like politics.
It seems to me that we are suffering a huge imbalance between the duties of those in government to solve everything, and the rights of policy wonks, retired politicians, opposition parties, back benchers of the the governing party, political media and the internet to tell us what is wrong without a hint as to what is right in any way other than on abstracted single issues, and often not even of those.
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
The implication, or inference, is she bought the house with his money to duck tax. Yes.
The Neidle tweet only seems to refer to property in France (due to way owned) not counting for her for additional property owned purposes under UK law. So she definitely doesn't owe any extra stamp duty.
But the question of whether it's really Farage's money and he's tax-efficiently put the house in her name remains.
(Note, I've no problem with that - family member has just bought a house with, partly, partner's money but it's in his name only as partner already owns another house - but it is a bit hypocritical to go after Rayner on her arrangements if that is the case.)
Did he go after Rayner ?
He did.
Link ? Specifics ?
Here’s this tweet from last Thursday which effectively called her a liar, I put in a PB header, it sealed the deal for me that she was a gonner
In short if I were in the public eye I would not want him focussing on my tax affairs.
Rayner's gone so it is academic but the whole thing could easily have been a misunderstanding about what constitutes taking legal advice about tax. She got advice from lawyers, she got advice about tax. The lay understanding is different from the professional.
The other step, which seems not have been taken, where there is a complex situation is to get on the record to the HMRC all the relevant facts. Once you do that you may get a decision which is nice for you; if you don't your lawyers and accountants can argue it out for you. Our system is such that the HMRC are never the final court of appeal over who owes what tax.
Failure to fully inform the HMRC (on the record, in writing) is more egregious than failure to take advice.
Pivoting away from Rayner and onto HMRC, the government might be sleepwalking into another trap. The state pension might soon pass the income tax personal allowance. If millions of financially unsophisticated pensioners are suddenly (and probably unknowingly) required to submit tax returns, either there will be a lot of fines or the HMRC computer will fall over.
Baroness May said: “I do not believe the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people from being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others.”
Theresa May, at least in that extract, does not say what safeguards would satisfy her. This is a debate conducted by ideologues throwing up chaff in support of their own prejudices.
Claiming that you can only criticise if you also present a solution is a well known failure in philosophical argument. Since the Ancient Greeks.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
What I am saying is this whole debate has not been conducted in good faith.
I very much got that impression from the Today debate this morning. It was all, "oh we don't have a proper risk assessment (when Lord Falconer pointed out that there was in fact a 151 page assessment including costs) and "there are 42 ways in which the Secretaries of State can set the rules and we don't know how" when every piece of legislation will have such delegated legislation which will be changed over time. It came across we have lost the argument but we still don't like it. Which is fair enough, I am still ambivalent myself, but it was not persuasive.
Baroness May said: “I do not believe the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people from being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others.”
Theresa May, at least in that extract, does not say what safeguards would satisfy her. This is a debate conducted by ideologues throwing up chaff in support of their own prejudices.
Claiming that you can only criticise if you also present a solution is a well known failure in philosophical argument. Since the Ancient Greeks.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
No, but a random on the internet is different from a (even unelected) legislator. In any case if a particular aspect (safeguards in this case) is brought up as flawed, you’d think the mentioner would give an alternative.
Baroness May said: “I do not believe the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people from being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others.”
Theresa May, at least in that extract, does not say what safeguards would satisfy her. This is a debate conducted by ideologues throwing up chaff in support of their own prejudices.
Claiming that you can only criticise if you also present a solution is a well known failure in philosophical argument. Since the Ancient Greeks.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
What I am saying is this whole debate has not been conducted in good faith.
Saying that you can only oppose a law if you supply the solution to your problems with it, is, itself, a bad faith argument.
This came up in debates on laws in Ancient Athens.
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
The implication, or inference, is she bought the house with his money to duck tax. Yes.
The Neidle tweet only seems to refer to property in France (due to way owned) not counting for her for additional property owned purposes under UK law. So she definitely doesn't owe any extra stamp duty.
But the question of whether it's really Farage's money and he's tax-efficiently put the house in her name remains.
(Note, I've no problem with that - family member has just bought a house with, partly, partner's money but it's in his name only as partner already owns another house - but it is a bit hypocritical to go after Rayner on her arrangements if that is the case.)
Did he go after Rayner ?
He did.
Link ? Specifics ?
Here’s this tweet from last Thursday which effectively called her a liar, I put in a PB header, it sealed the deal for me that she was a gonner
In short if I were in the public eye I would not want him focussing on my tax affairs.
Rayner's gone so it is academic but the whole thing could easily have been a misunderstanding about what constitutes taking legal advice about tax. She got advice from lawyers, she got advice about tax. The lay understanding is different from the professional.
The other step, which seems not have been taken, where there is a complex situation is to get on the record to the HMRC all the relevant facts. Once you do that you may get a decision which is nice for you; if you don't your lawyers and accountants can argue it out for you. Our system is such that the HMRC are never the final court of appeal over who owes what tax.
Failure to fully inform the HMRC (on the record, in writing) is more egregious than failure to take advice.
Pivoting away from Rayner and onto HMRC, the government might be sleepwalking into another trap. The state pension might soon pass the income tax personal allowance. If millions of financially unsophisticated pensioners are suddenly (and probably unknowingly) required to submit tax returns, either there will be a lot of fines or the HMRC computer will fall over.
I think it is a certainty that the treasury and HMRC will avoid that particular trap. There are a number of ways of doing so such as a small increase in the allowance, or a disregard for state pensions.
For a bit of fun this morning i did a quick cross reference of last nights local by election results (4 Reform gains from Labx2, Tory and ind, 1 Tory gain from Residents Assoc.) to the relevant ward at the GE and applied the swing to the seats. So we would get these five results at a GE (reminder JUST FOR FUN)
Reform gain Vale of Glamorgan and Hitchin from Labour Reform gain Aldridge-Brownhillls from Conservative Conservative (Esther McVey) hold Tatton Conservative (Nick Timothy) just holds on in West Suffolk
I really do not think labour can count on winning anywhere in Wales at present
I have £100 for the RNLI if Labour win zero seats at the Senedd in 2026 vs your £100 for Wheels for Wellbeing if they win one or more seats !
(Or propose an alternative threshold?)
They will win seats because of the voting system
However, my broader point is Labour in Wales are facing a very difficult Senedd election
My first impression would be that party members are going to vote in large numbers for whoever is the candidate least wanted by the Labour hierarchy/Starmer. Who very obviously want the one who hasn't just been sacked by Starmer.
Trump having had a stroke isn't really a conspiracy theory is it?
I would be sympathetic to him. It's not nice.
Incidentally, might it be something like Bells' Palsy? My dad had that a while back, and the hospital treated it as if it was a stroke until they knew otherwise.
Bell's palsy can be confused for a stroke. What you do in a diagnosis is consider prior probabilities. Is this someone who is likely to have a stroke or not? Trump is old and overweight, with symptoms indicative of heart failure. He's clearly at high risk of a stroke.
Whether he has had one, I've no idea.
A Bells Palsy would affect the forehead as well, not just the cheek and lower face as it is Lower Motor Neurone. If this is at it appears then it is a central lesion.
Wrestling commentator and legend Jim Ross had it. In his shoot videos he did say it was confused for a stroke initially.
It was even used against him as an angle by some really vile people
Graeme Garden was afflicted by Bell's Palsy a couple of decades back. At the time he remarked the condition was cruelly named, as it made pronouncing Bs and Ps extremely difficult.
Baroness May said: “I do not believe the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people from being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others.”
Theresa May, at least in that extract, does not say what safeguards would satisfy her. This is a debate conducted by ideologues throwing up chaff in support of their own prejudices.
Claiming that you can only criticise if you also present a solution is a well known failure in philosophical argument. Since the Ancient Greeks.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
What I am saying is this whole debate has not been conducted in good faith.
Saying that you can only oppose a law if you supply the solution to your problems with it, is, itself, a bad faith argument.
This came up in debates on laws in Ancient Athens.
I am not saying that. No doubt many have fundamental philosophical or even religious grounds for objection (or support, in other cases). It is disingenuous to imply that the stated objections are the real, fixed ones.
Pete, you're obsessed with Boris. You see Boris fans everywhere. There are hardly any. Most of us on the right were at best deeply ambivalent about him at the time - you juat didn't see it because you perceived any failure to be constantly furious about every aspect of him as wild fandom.
What is sauce for the goose etc.
I am just so dismayed that this week's Johnson revelations regarding Madura et al don't make any noise in the media outside the Guardian. Now you might counter that with " well he's no longer in Government". And that would be true.
Even when he was in Government he never set the media pulse racing with, what I consider to be the most egregious genuine national security scandal since World War II. A scandal which had it involved ANYONE else would have been bigger than Profumo. I am talking about a UK Foreign Secretary shaking off his minders to attend a "Gentleman's" party in Lombardy hosted by the KGB.
And yet on here and in the media he is revered for "having got all the big calls right".
I don't think you're reading this right. Almost no-one on here reveres Boris. But there are some - and I think you are one - for whom their hatred of him is so all-consuming that they see any failure to criticise him as reverence - even for things completely unpolitical. I find him an entertaining writer for example. Clearly many do - he made a career out of it. But even that rankles for you, doesn't it - your quick brain is thinking "that Cookie, he finds Boris an entertaining writer, he reveres him and secretly wants him back as PM". But I don't. I agree he was a distinctly sub-optimal PM. I did vote for him, and I don't regret it, because my view was and remains that PM Corbyn would have been far worse. And I think during covid he got a lot wrong, but so did everybody - and I think he got less wrong than most of his counterparts on the continent or in Scotland or Wales (and, as I've said, Starmer at LOTO absolutely did get everything wrong - normally demonstrably so within weeks). Even terrible people are right sometimes. It's possible to concede good qualities about politicians you think are very bad for the country. Look, I'll start: Keir Starmer: he's a good looking fella with good hair. Gordon Brown: by all appearances, a decent father and husband. Jeremy Corbyn: I actually find his fondness for allotments and grids admirable. Doesn't mean I'm a fan of any of them. But nor am I under the illusion that these people are the worst people in history or that anyone who sees any positive aspects of them at all must be in love with them.
You have just countered my post of why I despise ( but do not hate) Johnson by explaining that during COVID Starmer got everything wrong and by contrast Johnson got it right. And a hatful of people have given you likes.
Revered, loved and exempt from too much criticism, even when his behaviour and incompetence have been outrageous.
I said "almost no-one on here reveres Boris" - and I said "during Covid he got a lot wrong" - and you have interpreted this as me saying "during covid Johnson got everything right" and that "Boris is revered, loved, and exempt from too much criticism".
Which is exactly what I said in the rest of my post: you seem to interpret anyone not hating (or despising, which you apparently prefer - fine, if you want) Boris as much as you do must revere and love him. He seems to have driven you a bit mad.
So you are saying there is a large upside potential?
It’s becoming ever clearer that Britain’s primary economic problem is penny-pinching households and businesses. Labour have managed to suppress confidence even further since their election. Reeves’ number one priority at the budget should be to boost confidence.
The lack of confidence is a symptom of the problem, not the problem in itself. The problem is a state that seems determined to strangle economic growth, even as it gaslights about wanting to boost it. That causes low confidence. And to boost confidence in the private sector, which is the ultimate source of all long term economic growth, the government needs to stop raising taxes on the productive and enterprising, cut spending on unproductive malingerers and losers and deregulate.
But they're going to jack up taxes further, especially no doubt those taxes (business and payroll) that hurt growth in the long term and regulate more. And they've failed spectacularly to cut spending despite a gigantic majority.
So, barring some miracle or change in the laws of economics, we have at least three more years of stagnation.
I would love to be wrong about this but I'm almost certain.
ODD THINGS GOING ON WITH FISHING’s FORMATTING. THIS IS MY REPLY
It’s been a structural problem for this country since 2008. Labour may make it worse or better, but look around at our peers and most are in a similar position. The big area where we’re worse is in business investment and productivity growth, and there we lag several countries with much higher taxes and a much larger public sector.
xxxxxx
ODD THINGS GOING ON WITH FISHING’s FORMATTING. THIS IS MY REPLY:
Yes. And just to follow up with an off the wall question. IIRC the UK economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending for its vitality and health; I think we are being told that people are cautious about discretionary spending because of doubts about the future and so on.
Suppose a few million people are undergoing a bit of a zeitgeist shift, one which is entirely possible. The shift is this: that discretionary consumerism is massively overdone and most of the best things in life, once the non-discretionary bills are paid, are either free or inexpensive.
Instances: Tickling the baby's toes. Walks, countryside. Youtube. Drinking with friends at home instead of the pub.
----- You are right. Quotes are borked. Sorted-ish, but I may be misattributing.
I'd call that a philosophy not a zeitgeist, and I'd put it in the ABO category ("Absolutely Bloody Obvious").
One of my favourite quotes that is still in my head is from decades back (maybe 1990), when I was thinking about such things:
"I like going window shopping to look at all the expensive things I don't need to buy."
------------------------
Another factor is that covid had a double effect - reminded us of our mortality and at the same time disrupted habitual patterns. Hence "Bugger going into the office for another few years - I want to jack it in and do something else which gives me time to tickle the baby's toes before I die" etc.
But also don't forget that older folk are increasingly worried about health and social care (and indeed this is also partly down to the covid era). This was something that came up in a recent Which article, based on a surveyu of members. They may have saved up but aren't going to buiy shares in UK plc if they don't feel safe, never mind what their patriotic duty is (or indeed in anyone else). And with the various bogeypersons of/for both Left and Right roaming around, they're not irrational.
My first impression would be that party members are going to vote in large numbers for whoever is the candidate least wanted by the Labour hierarchy/Starmer. Who very obviously want the one who hasn't just been sacked by Starmer.
Are other arguments to be preferred?
I'm on at 3/1 - based on the same logic as your good self.
I'm not too clear on the system though - unions have a big say?
My first impression would be that party members are going to vote in large numbers for whoever is the candidate least wanted by the Labour hierarchy/Starmer. Who very obviously want the one who hasn't just been sacked by Starmer.
Are other arguments to be preferred?
I'm staying out of it, especially since I reckon that, given a perfectly free choice, Keir Starmer does not want a deputy foisted on him at all. (iirc Jeremy Corbyn was not keen, either.)
In any case, I'm not sure your reasoning is sound, and policy and delivery will matter more. The EdSec has made changes to schools which, even if not universally applauded here (VAT on private schools, for instance) will probably go down well with the rank and file, and I suspect it is the two women's records that will tip the balance. That said, Conference and hustings can sometimes change things drastically, as with Cameron, so, who knows?
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
The implication, or inference, is she bought the house with his money to duck tax. Yes.
The Neidle tweet only seems to refer to property in France (due to way owned) not counting for her for additional property owned purposes under UK law. So she definitely doesn't owe any extra stamp duty.
But the question of whether it's really Farage's money and he's tax-efficiently put the house in her name remains.
(Note, I've no problem with that - family member has just bought a house with, partly, partner's money but it's in his name only as partner already owns another house - but it is a bit hypocritical to go after Rayner on her arrangements if that is the case.)
Did he go after Rayner ?
He did.
Link ? Specifics ?
Here’s this tweet from last Thursday which effectively called her a liar, I put in a PB header, it sealed the deal for me that she was a gonner
In short if I were in the public eye I would not want him focussing on my tax affairs.
Rayner's gone so it is academic but the whole thing could easily have been a misunderstanding about what constitutes taking legal advice about tax. She got advice from lawyers, she got advice about tax. The lay understanding is different from the professional.
The other step, which seems not have been taken, where there is a complex situation is to get on the record to the HMRC all the relevant facts. Once you do that you may get a decision which is nice for you; if you don't your lawyers and accountants can argue it out for you. Our system is such that the HMRC are never the final court of appeal over who owes what tax.
Failure to fully inform the HMRC (on the record, in writing) is more egregious than failure to take advice.
Pivoting away from Rayner and onto HMRC, the government might be sleepwalking into another trap. The state pension might soon pass the income tax personal allowance. If millions of financially unsophisticated pensioners are suddenly (and probably unknowingly) required to submit tax returns, either there will be a lot of fines or the HMRC computer will fall over.
I think it is a certainty that the treasury and HMRC will avoid that particular trap. There are a number of ways of doing so such as a small increase in the allowance, or a disregard for state pensions.
You would hope so, but if the government had any talent for avoiding the bleeding obvious, they'd not have appointed to Washington the bloke who had to resign not once but twice over previous indiscretions.
Trump having had a stroke isn't really a conspiracy theory is it?
I would be sympathetic to him. It's not nice.
Incidentally, might it be something like Bells' Palsy? My dad had that a while back, and the hospital treated it as if it was a stroke until they knew otherwise.
Bell's palsy can be confused for a stroke. What you do in a diagnosis is consider prior probabilities. Is this someone who is likely to have a stroke or not? Trump is old and overweight, with symptoms indicative of heart failure. He's clearly at high risk of a stroke.
Whether he has had one, I've no idea.
A Bells Palsy would affect the forehead as well, not just the cheek and lower face as it is Lower Motor Neurone. If this is at it appears then it is a central lesion.
Wrestling commentator and legend Jim Ross had it. In his shoot videos he did say it was confused for a stroke initially.
It was even used against him as an angle by some really vile people
Graeme Garden was afflicted by Bell's Palsy a couple of decades back. At the time he remarked the condition was cruelly named, as it made pronouncing Bs and Ps extremely difficult.
I had bells palsy in my 20s. It lasted about 6 weeks. I couldn't ride my motobike because it destroyed my balance
I couldn't close one eye
To this day when I sleep my left eye is slightly open
So you are saying there is a large upside potential?
It’s becoming ever clearer that Britain’s primary economic problem is penny-pinching households and businesses. Labour have managed to suppress confidence even further since their election. Reeves’ number one priority at the budget should be to boost confidence.
The lack of confidence is a symptom of the problem, not the problem in itself. The problem is a state that seems determined to strangle economic growth, even as it gaslights about wanting to boost it. That causes low confidence. And to boost confidence in the private sector, which is the ultimate source of all long term economic growth, the government needs to stop raising taxes on the productive and enterprising, cut spending on unproductive malingerers and losers and deregulate.
But they're going to jack up taxes further, especially no doubt those taxes (business and payroll) that hurt growth in the long term and regulate more. And they've failed spectacularly to cut spending despite a gigantic majority.
So, barring some miracle or change in the laws of economics, we have at least three more years of stagnation.
I would love to be wrong about this but I'm almost certain.
ODD THINGS GOING ON WITH FISHING’s FORMATTING. THIS IS MY REPLY
It’s been a structural problem for this country since 2008. Labour may make it worse or better, but look around at our peers and most are in a similar position. The big area where we’re worse is in business investment and productivity growth, and there we lag several countries with much higher taxes and a much larger public sector.
xxxxxx
ODD THINGS GOING ON WITH FISHING’s FORMATTING. THIS IS MY REPLY:
Yes. And just to follow up with an off the wall question. IIRC the UK economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending for its vitality and health; I think we are being told that people are cautious about discretionary spending because of doubts about the future and so on.
Suppose a few million people are undergoing a bit of a zeitgeist shift, one which is entirely possible. The shift is this: that discretionary consumerism is massively overdone and most of the best things in life, once the non-discretionary bills are paid, are either free or inexpensive.
Instances: Tickling the baby's toes. Walks, countryside. Youtube. Drinking with friends at home instead of the pub.
----- You are right. Quotes are borked. Sorted-ish, but I may be misattributing.
I'd call that a philosophy not a zeitgeist, and I'd put it in the ABO category ("Absolutely Bloody Obvious").
One of my favourite quotes that is still in my head is from decades back (maybe 1990), when I was thinking about such things:
"I like going window shopping to look at all the expensive things I don't need to buy."
------------------------
Another factor is that covid had a double effect - reminded us of our mortality and at the same time disrupted habitual patterns. Hence "Bugger going into the office for another few years - I want to jack it in and do something else which gives me time to tickle the baby's toes before I die" etc.
But also don't forget that older folk are increasingly worried about health and social care (and indeed this is also partly down to the covid era). This was something that came up in a recent Which article, based on a surveyu of members. They may have saved up but aren't going to buiy shares in UK plc if they don't feel safe, never mind what their patriotic duty is (or indeed in anyone else). And with the various bogeypersons of/for both Left and Right roaming around, they're not irrational.
That wasn't me. But I probably wasn't quoting him !
The Netherlands is, I think, the fourth country to say it won't participate in Eurovision if Israel is allowed to participate.
At this rate it will only be Royaume Uni and Israel, which gives us a 50/50 chance of winning.
No it gives us about a 1% chance of winning and personally if Israel is there I won't be watching.
It seems a mild way of highlighting the opprobrium that is being piled up on Israel by their current policies but it also highlights a problem. Those interested in Eurovision will no doubt be as appalled as we are by what Israel is doing. And those who are doing it really won't give a damn.
Labour MP says it is "dangerous" for No10 to have made an enemy of Mandelson
"If you are going to ask who is a more effective politician, Peter Mandelson or Keir Starmer, there is only one answer. It's like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler"
So you are saying there is a large upside potential?
Yes, plus it is good for Labour that they aren't peaking too soon before the election.
GDP growth has actually been faster than most of the G7 this year. It just really hasn’t felt like it.
Well I shall be doing my bit for economic growth this week, as I have ordered four new Apple watches and five new iPhones.
That’s deserving of an MBE. We should start handing out gongs for ordinary people making extraordinary purchases.
I need a peerage for my sacrifice, if you want to see how damaging inflation is then is it.
Last year the top end iPhone 16 Pro Max cost £1,599 and the top end iPhone 17 Pro Max is costing be £1,999.
Okay, it is has gone from a 1TB storage to a 2TB storage but still.
Microsoft emailed me today to say my MS365 subscription is going up from 59.99 to 84.99.
This is discretionary inflation. Which means growing margins, which means more money for corporates to invest in productivity growth.
Microsoft keep emailing to say my payment method is out of date. I have tried 3 forms of payment and each time I get the message that my payment has failed.
So you are saying there is a large upside potential?
Yes, plus it is good for Labour that they aren't peaking too soon before the election.
GDP growth has actually been faster than most of the G7 this year. It just really hasn’t felt like it.
Well I shall be doing my bit for economic growth this week, as I have ordered four new Apple watches and five new iPhones.
That’s deserving of an MBE. We should start handing out gongs for ordinary people making extraordinary purchases.
I need a peerage for my sacrifice, if you want to see how damaging inflation is then is it.
Last year the top end iPhone 16 Pro Max cost £1,599 and the top end iPhone 17 Pro Max is costing be £1,999.
Okay, it is has gone from a 1TB storage to a 2TB storage but still.
Microsoft emailed me today to say my MS365 subscription is going up from 59.99 to 84.99.
This is discretionary inflation. Which means growing margins, which means more money for corporates to invest in productivity growth.
Microsoft keep emailing to say my payment method is out of date. I have tried 3 forms of payment and each time I get the message that my payment has failed.
I posted back in April that anyone using a family or personal Microsoft subscription should renew as soon as possible.
My family subscription will run to June 2030 at which point we will know if AI is useful on an individual basis or only in specialist areas
So you are saying there is a large upside potential?
Yes, plus it is good for Labour that they aren't peaking too soon before the election.
GDP growth has actually been faster than most of the G7 this year. It just really hasn’t felt like it.
Well I shall be doing my bit for economic growth this week, as I have ordered four new Apple watches and five new iPhones.
That’s deserving of an MBE. We should start handing out gongs for ordinary people making extraordinary purchases.
I need a peerage for my sacrifice, if you want to see how damaging inflation is then is it.
Last year the top end iPhone 16 Pro Max cost £1,599 and the top end iPhone 17 Pro Max is costing be £1,999.
Okay, it is has gone from a 1TB storage to a 2TB storage but still.
Microsoft emailed me today to say my MS365 subscription is going up from 59.99 to 84.99.
This is discretionary inflation. Which means growing margins, which means more money for corporates to invest in productivity growth.
Microsoft keep emailing to say my payment method is out of date. I have tried 3 forms of payment and each time I get the message that my payment has failed.
I have the same with Asda for my delivery pass but they take each weeks shopping delivery from the same account
Spoke to customer services but Indian based call centre were utterly hopeless
It won’t be ChatGPT, it’s basically a not trolling through Facebook after a report is received. And don’t forget a lot of reports will be coming from unexpected amounts in banks relative to earnings
Labour MP says it is "dangerous" for No10 to have made an enemy of Mandelson
"If you are going to ask who is a more effective politician, Peter Mandelson or Keir Starmer, there is only one answer. It's like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler"
Labour MP says it is "dangerous" for No10 to have made an enemy of Mandelson
"If you are going to ask who is a more effective politician, Peter Mandelson or Keir Starmer, there is only one answer. It's like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler"
The Netherlands is, I think, the fourth country to say it won't participate in Eurovision if Israel is allowed to participate.
At this rate it will only be Royaume Uni and Israel, which gives us a 50/50 chance of winning.
No it gives us about a 1% chance of winning and personally if Israel is there I won't be watching.
It seems a mild way of highlighting the opprobrium that is being piled up on Israel by their current policies but it also highlights a problem. Those interested in Eurovision will no doubt be as appalled as we are by what Israel is doing. And those who are doing it really won't give a damn.
But the weird thing is that they do give a damn, right down to ‘making sure’ the Israeli entry gets lots of votes.
My first impression would be that party members are going to vote in large numbers for whoever is the candidate least wanted by the Labour hierarchy/Starmer. Who very obviously want the one who hasn't just been sacked by Starmer.
Are other arguments to be preferred?
A lot of the members who would have voted Powell to spite the leadership have already torn up their membership cards and buggered off. Leaving a higher proportion of loyalists getting a vote.
Labour MP says it is "dangerous" for No10 to have made an enemy of Mandelson
"If you are going to ask who is a more effective politician, Peter Mandelson or Keir Starmer, there is only one answer. It's like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler"
The Netherlands is, I think, the fourth country to say it won't participate in Eurovision if Israel is allowed to participate.
At this rate it will only be Royaume Uni and Israel, which gives us a 50/50 chance of winning.
No it gives us about a 1% chance of winning and personally if Israel is there I won't be watching.
It seems a mild way of highlighting the opprobrium that is being piled up on Israel by their current policies but it also highlights a problem. Those interested in Eurovision will no doubt be as appalled as we are by what Israel is doing. And those who are doing it really won't give a damn.
I think the problem for the European Broadcasting Union is the US.
Eurovision has gained a modest amount of success in the US. One of the networks even had an American Song Contest in 2022 as an attempted knock off. So if Eurovision bans Israel it becomes an issue picked up in the US and Eurovision becomes part of the US culture war.
In the US Ambassador Derby, I would go for putting Dame Karen Pierce back - maybe officially as an "interim", but in practice for the remainder of Trump's term, and maybe longer.
1 - She is well-regarded, afaics by everyone. 2 - She is formidable, but unorthodox. 3 - She was there for the last year of Trump's previous term. 4 - She has extensive contacts.
But it would depend on her saying "yes".
5 - Last time round she was a Conservative appointment, which might help the politics.
The Netherlands is, I think, the fourth country to say it won't participate in Eurovision if Israel is allowed to participate.
At this rate it will only be Royaume Uni and Israel, which gives us a 50/50 chance of winning.
No it gives us about a 1% chance of winning and personally if Israel is there I won't be watching.
It seems a mild way of highlighting the opprobrium that is being piled up on Israel by their current policies but it also highlights a problem. Those interested in Eurovision will no doubt be as appalled as we are by what Israel is doing. And those who are doing it really won't give a damn.
I think the problem for the European Broadcasting Union is the US.
Eurovision has gained a modest amount of success in the US. One of the networks even had an American Song Contest in 2022 as an attempted knock off. So if Eurovision bans Israel it becomes an issue picked up in the US and Eurovision becomes part of the US culture war.
I don't see it being a problem for the EBU - their problem is how do you produce a 2026 show when half the usual participants don't want one participant attending. That requires them making a decision.
It's a problem for the EU though because Trump will see the first and last words and fail to grasp that the European Broadcasting Union isn't anything to do with the European Union.
The one thing we can safely say is that Israel won't willingly withdraw...
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
Yes.
But Farage does not give a hoot about putting out straight fabrications if it is to his political advantage, or lying todeceiving the US Congress, so why would he worry about that?
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
The implication, or inference, is she bought the house with his money to duck tax. Yes.
Yes, or AML scrutiny.
He denies giving her the money, so maybe someone else did.
Dan Neidles tweet I linked to implies it’s all above board
Highly unlikely Farage had 885k laying around spare to buy a house in his or anyone else’s name in my opinion.
Dan Neidle is the centre left guru on these things usually, it would look weird if they started quibbling with him now all of a sudden
Labour MP says it is "dangerous" for No10 to have made an enemy of Mandelson
"If you are going to ask who is a more effective politician, Peter Mandelson or Keir Starmer, there is only one answer. It's like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler"
1. Reply to a comment way back in the thread that “the UK was swimming in sub-prime” before 2007 and blaming US lending for the crisis is wrong: not the case. The trigger for the crisis was entirely US sub-prime. The UK problem was that our banks had invested heavily in US sub prime CDFs. Take Northern Rock: it had very little of its own sub prime lending. It was bright down by its other balance sheet weaknesses.
2. In good news reminiscent of this week’s ESW/English Fizz triumph, I noted 2 separate foreign colleagues using the term “starter for 10” in a work context. This on top of regular use of “close of play”. The British fightback against US corporate jargon continues!
The Netherlands is, I think, the fourth country to say it won't participate in Eurovision if Israel is allowed to participate.
At this rate it will only be Royaume Uni and Israel, which gives us a 50/50 chance of winning.
No it gives us about a 1% chance of winning and personally if Israel is there I won't be watching.
It seems a mild way of highlighting the opprobrium that is being piled up on Israel by their current policies but it also highlights a problem. Those interested in Eurovision will no doubt be as appalled as we are by what Israel is doing. And those who are doing it really won't give a damn.
I think the problem for the European Broadcasting Union is the US.
Eurovision has gained a modest amount of success in the US. One of the networks even had an American Song Contest in 2022 as an attempted knock off. So if Eurovision bans Israel it becomes an issue picked up in the US and Eurovision becomes part of the US culture war.
I don't see it being a problem for the EBU - their problem is how do you produce a 2026 show when half the usual participants don't want one participant attending. That requires them making a decision.
It's a problem for the EU though because Trump will see the first and last words and fail to grasp that the European Broadcasting Union isn't anything to do with the European Union.
The one thing we can safely say is that Israel won't willingly withdraw...
They should never have let Israel in the first place. Not Australia
The charm of it - such as it is - is the European-ness
For anyone wanting to keep an eye on where the Right are in the USA at present, there is a large collection of headline speeches from NatCon 5 which have dropped this week.
There are various cabinet level figures, foreign policy types (including the founder of Visegrad 24), a couple talking about religion and the Govt, and others. The ones that I have listened too are fairly short.
it is afaics aligned with the Trump regime.
There are also some NatConSquad podcasts on the feed, which are essentially youngish intellectuals talking to themselves about why Trump & Co are correct on various current questions.
1. Reply to a comment way back in the thread that “the UK was swimming in sub-prime” before 2007 and blaming US lending for the crisis is wrong: not the case. The trigger for the crisis was entirely US sub-prime. The UK problem was that our banks had invested heavily in US sub prime CDFs. Take Northern Rock: it had very little of its own sub prime lending. It was bright down by its other balance sheet weaknesses.
2. In good news reminiscent of this week’s ESW/English Fizz triumph, I noted 2 separate foreign colleagues using the term “starter for 10” in a work context. This on top of regular use of “close of play”. The British fightback against US corporate jargon continues!
University Challenge was an American format. You might need to check if it still runs. College Bowl maybe?
That implies the suspect was a regular at church .
Interesting. Let's suppose the guy was a pro-Israeli evangelical fanatic. We know Kirk traded in anti-semitism. Would that have been enough to motivate the guy to murder? I mean, with the evangelicals is more about the land than defending Jews per se, so would he have been that bothered?
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
Yes.
But Farage does not give a hoot about putting out straight fabrications if it is to his political advantage, or lying todeceiving the US Congress, so why would he worry about that?
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
The implication, or inference, is she bought the house with his money to duck tax. Yes.
Yes, or AML scrutiny.
He denies giving her the money, so maybe someone else did.
Dan Neidles tweet I linked to implies it’s all above board
Highly unlikely Farage had 885k laying around spare to buy a house in his or anyone else’s name in my opinion.
Dan Neidle is the centre left guru on these things usually, it would look weird if they started quibbling with him now all of a sudden
Farage’s partner equally doesn’t have that amount of cash.
I actually don’t see why Dan spent any time looking at the tax here - it was obvious from the beginning that the weirdness here is how she got £900,000 to buy the property not weird ways you can own French property
1. Reply to a comment way back in the thread that “the UK was swimming in sub-prime” before 2007 and blaming US lending for the crisis is wrong: not the case. The trigger for the crisis was entirely US sub-prime. The UK problem was that our banks had invested heavily in US sub prime CDFs. Take Northern Rock: it had very little of its own sub prime lending. It was bright down by its other balance sheet weaknesses.
2. In good news reminiscent of this week’s ESW/English Fizz triumph, I noted 2 separate foreign colleagues using the term “starter for 10” in a work context. This on top of regular use of “close of play”. The British fightback against US corporate jargon continues!
University Challenge was an American format. You might need to check if it still runs. College Bowl maybe?
College Bowl was the original format but starter for 10 was a Bamber Gascoigne original, so we can comfortably lay claim to that one.
That implies the suspect was a regular at church .
Interesting. Let's suppose the guy was a pro-Israeli evangelical fanatic. We know Kirk traded in anti-semitism. Would that have been enough to motivate the guy to murder? I mean, with the evangelicals is more about the land than defending Jews per se, so would he have been that bothered?
Kirk was pro-Israel, but otherwise, generally anti-semitic.
Jews ran everything and Hollywood, Marxist conspiracy, etc.
That implies the suspect was a regular at church .
Interesting. Let's suppose the guy was a pro-Israeli evangelical fanatic. We know Kirk traded in anti-semitism. Would that have been enough to motivate the guy to murder? I mean, with the evangelicals is more about the land than defending Jews per se, so would he have been that bothered?
We should hopefully find out soon . I expect they’ll release the name when they do that news conference and then we’re bound to here about their social media .
I wonder if the shooter is this Skye Val-wotsit character
If so he surely didn’t expect to get away with it, after recording a song about Charlie Kirk dying at 31. Which maybe suggests it is NOT him
Person who decides that assassination is the right and proper action has unrealistic expectations of escaping justice?
The latter wouldn't be the first wrong decision they'd made.
There are claims that the images of this particular individual have been altered with AI to make them look more like the CCTV footage. If so, multiple attempts to pin this on Trans so far.
Isn't the suggestion that Farage bought the house through his partner to avoid the extra Stamp Duty? That is perfectly legal, in the sense that he gives his partner money as a gift to buy the house and has no legal interest in it, but politically suboptimal. I didn't think there was a suggestion that his partner hadn't paid the tax due if it was her purchase (which seems to be what the quoted article is about).
Farage/partner don't owe any tax and have certainly done nothing illegal, but having partner buy the home you live in for tax efficiency purposes (if it was Farage's money rather than hers, which is not yet determined) looks a bit hypocritical given the attacks on Rayner.
It all looks perfectly legal. The issues are:
a) Politicians doing something to avoid tax that would be perfectly reasonable for all of us to do, but they are held to a higher standard, which is bizarre as most have demonstrated they are not capable of even meeting the standards joe public meets.
b) Telling fibs about it (which I think is the more damaging). Those fibs being that when challenged on not visiting Clacton saying he had exchanged on a house that day and then the issues of it being her money and not his (or is it?). Again pretty unfair, because he has done more than many MPs to establish a constituency home* and hasn't done anything wrong, but is being caught out by embellishing his arrangement somewhat.
* Michael Gove claimed to be local to Surrey Hearth by renting a house, then buggered off when he got elected. The previous Conservative MP for Guildford claimed to live in Guildford, and bought a flat there, but in reality lived in a family home about 20 miles outside the constituency. Lots of MPs do this. Establish a home of sorts during the election for electioneering purposes, then drop it.
Farage has put in as much effort as many, but is being caught out by the link to the Rayner issue and a few stretches of the truth.
20 miles away isn't a biggy in normal circs, though for Clacton that could mean a 2 hour drive (or a small boat crossing ).
I thought Farage has said that he didn't gift her the money and that it's her family money. Which has raised more questions because journos' research is that her family doesn't have money.
I agree it isn't a biggy. I was just pointing out the lengths many MPs go to imply they are local (ie living in the constituency) by renting a house or buying a flat in the constituency. 20 miles away is peanuts, but the prospective MPs are keen to show they actually live in the constituency, even if that is actually not really true.
Re your second point, that is really the second point I was also making. Farage has put more effort than many MPs is creating a perception of being local, but has got himself in a pickle by claiming 'he' exchanged on a house and now that is shown not to be the case the issue of who funded the purchase crops up and did she really have the resources to do so having claimed she did. Many other MPs have far less credible stories regarding their local credentials, but aren't getting this scrutiny.
He has actually done nothing wrong and done more than many MPs to create local credentials, but appears to have been tripped up by exaggerating (or lying) about some of it. Many other MPs are probably going 'Phew that could have been me'
The suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk confessed to his father that he was the shooter. His father told authorities and secured his son until they could arrive to pick him up— Sources tell @evanperez
The Netherlands is, I think, the fourth country to say it won't participate in Eurovision if Israel is allowed to participate.
At this rate it will only be Royaume Uni and Israel, which gives us a 50/50 chance of winning.
No it gives us about a 1% chance of winning and personally if Israel is there I won't be watching.
It seems a mild way of highlighting the opprobrium that is being piled up on Israel by their current policies but it also highlights a problem. Those interested in Eurovision will no doubt be as appalled as we are by what Israel is doing. And those who are doing it really won't give a damn.
I think the problem for the European Broadcasting Union is the US.
Eurovision has gained a modest amount of success in the US. One of the networks even had an American Song Contest in 2022 as an attempted knock off. So if Eurovision bans Israel it becomes an issue picked up in the US and Eurovision becomes part of the US culture war.
I don't see it being a problem for the EBU - their problem is how do you produce a 2026 show when half the usual participants don't want one participant attending. That requires them making a decision.
It's a problem for the EU though because Trump will see the first and last words and fail to grasp that the European Broadcasting Union isn't anything to do with the European Union.
The one thing we can safely say is that Israel won't willingly withdraw...
They should never have let Israel in the first place. Not Australia
The charm of it - such as it is - is the European-ness
I understand they like joining Euro-this and Euro-that as their neighbours don't like them.
The suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk confessed to his father that he was the shooter. His father told authorities and secured his son until they could arrive to pick him up— Sources tell @evanperez
Allegations of an Asian woman raped by two white men who told her she shouldn't be in the UK. Should heavily tatooed Asians start picketing branches of Wetherspoons with signs saying "save are kids"? I believe that is the PB rightist approved response to this kind of incident.
It’s a data Centre - a few jobs building it, a few jobs replacing equipment as it fails but a serious amount of energy required to the extent that in the US companies are buying nuclear power stations to ensure they get enough power.
I really don’t regard it as a great deal for the UK
The suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk confessed to his father that he was the shooter. His father told authorities and secured his son until they could arrive to pick him up— Sources tell @evanperez
Comments
Failure to fully inform the HMRC (on the record, in writing) is more egregious than failure to take advice.
To give another example - do you think it is impossible to criticise the government for declaring Palestinian Action a terrorist group, without presenting a full solution to the issues raised by PAs actions?
LD 910
RefUK 791
Con 770
Lab 170
Green 165
LD gain from Con
Percentages
LD 32.4% (-2.1)
RefUK 28.2% ( new)
Con 27.4% (-5)
Lab 6.1% (-5.7)
Green 5.9% (-6.5
That gives Reform 4, Conservative 1, and Lib Dem 1, for the week.
1 - She is well-regarded, afaics by everyone.
2 - She is formidable, but unorthodox.
3 - She was there for the last year of Trump's previous term.
4 - She has extensive contacts.
But it would depend on her saying "yes".
Though this is true of lots of interesting questions in epistemology, and the metaphysics of universals and many others, no-one is suggesting that these fields are much use in a practical realm like politics.
It seems to me that we are suffering a huge imbalance between the duties of those in government to solve everything, and the rights of policy wonks, retired politicians, opposition parties, back benchers of the the governing party, political media and the internet to tell us what is wrong without a hint as to what is right in any way other than on abstracted single issues, and often not even of those.
Hasn't Lord Falconer resigned by the way?
This came up in debates on laws in Ancient Athens.
However, my broader point is Labour in Wales are facing a very difficult Senedd election
My first impression would be that party members are going to vote in large numbers for whoever is the candidate least wanted by the Labour hierarchy/Starmer. Who very obviously want the one who hasn't just been sacked by Starmer.
Are other arguments to be preferred?
At the time he remarked the condition was cruelly named, as it made pronouncing Bs and Ps extremely difficult.
Which is exactly what I said in the rest of my post: you seem to interpret anyone not hating (or despising, which you apparently prefer - fine, if you want) Boris as much as you do must revere and love him. He seems to have driven you a bit mad.
xxxxxx
ODD THINGS GOING ON WITH FISHING’s FORMATTING. THIS IS MY REPLY:
Yes. And just to follow up with an off the wall question. IIRC the UK economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending for its vitality and health; I think we are being told that people are cautious about discretionary spending because of doubts about the future and so on.
Suppose a few million people are undergoing a bit of a zeitgeist shift, one which is entirely possible. The shift is this: that discretionary consumerism is massively overdone and most of the best things in life, once the non-discretionary bills are paid, are either free or inexpensive.
Instances: Tickling the baby's toes. Walks, countryside. Youtube. Drinking with friends at home instead of the pub.
----- You are right. Quotes are borked. Sorted-ish, but I may be misattributing.
I'd call that a philosophy not a zeitgeist, and I'd put it in the ABO category ("Absolutely Bloody Obvious").
One of my favourite quotes that is still in my head is from decades back (maybe 1990), when I was thinking about such things:
"I like going window shopping to look at all the expensive things I don't need to buy."
------------------------
Another factor is that covid had a double effect - reminded us of our mortality and at the same time disrupted habitual patterns. Hence "Bugger going into the office for another few years - I want to jack it in and do something else which gives me time to tickle the baby's toes before I die" etc.
But also don't forget that older folk are increasingly worried about health and social care (and indeed this is also partly down to the covid era). This was something that came up in a recent Which article, based on a surveyu of members. They may have saved up but aren't going to buiy shares in UK plc if they don't feel safe, never mind what their patriotic duty is (or indeed in anyone else). And with the various bogeypersons of/for both Left and Right roaming around, they're not irrational.
I'm not too clear on the system though - unions have a big say?
In any case, I'm not sure your reasoning is sound, and policy and delivery will matter more. The EdSec has made changes to schools which, even if not universally applauded here (VAT on private schools, for instance) will probably go down well with the rank and file, and I suspect it is the two women's records that will tip the balance. That said, Conference and hustings can sometimes change things drastically, as with Cameron, so, who knows?
And that is why I am sitting it out.
I couldn't close one eye
To this day when I sleep my left eye is slightly open
It could have been worse.
I'd call that a philosophy not a zeitgeist, and I'd put it in the ABO category ("Absolutely Bloody Obvious").
One of my favourite quotes that is still in my head is from decades back (maybe 1990), when I was thinking about such things:
"I like going window shopping to look at all the expensive things I don't need to buy."
------------------------
Another factor is that covid had a double effect - reminded us of our mortality and at the same time disrupted habitual patterns. Hence "Bugger going into the office for another few years - I want to jack it in and do something else which gives me time to tickle the baby's toes before I die" etc.
But also don't forget that older folk are increasingly worried about health and social care (and indeed this is also partly down to the covid era). This was something that came up in a recent Which article, based on a surveyu of members. They may have saved up but aren't going to buiy shares in UK plc if they don't feel safe, never mind what their patriotic duty is (or indeed in anyone else). And with the various bogeypersons of/for both Left and Right roaming around, they're not irrational.
That wasn't me. But I probably wasn't quoting him !
https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/1966348937352327655?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Labour MP says it is "dangerous" for No10 to have made an enemy of Mandelson
"If you are going to ask who is a more effective politician, Peter Mandelson or Keir Starmer, there is only one answer. It's like Mike Tyson fighting a toddler"
https://x.com/elenicourea/status/1966462491761803630
Tax office ramps up staff training and AI snooping in fresh fraud crackdown
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/hmrc-doubles-size-tax-evasion-surveillance-team/ (£££)
ChatGPT is coming for Ange and Nige.
NEWS: TRUMP announces on Fox & Friends that Charlie Kirk's assassin "is in custody"
"I think with a high degree of certainty, we have him in custody," Trump said
POTUS says FBI will release announce it later today
My family subscription will run to June 2030 at which point we will know if AI is useful on an individual basis or only in specialist areas
Spoke to customer services but Indian based call centre were utterly hopeless
Sky saying no 10 trying to shut this down
Good luck with that
Eurovision has gained a modest amount of success in the US. One of the networks even had an American Song Contest in 2022 as an attempted knock off. So if Eurovision bans Israel it becomes an issue picked up in the US and Eurovision becomes part of the US culture war.
It's a problem for the EU though because Trump will see the first and last words and fail to grasp that the European Broadcasting Union isn't anything to do with the European Union.
The one thing we can safely say is that Israel won't willingly withdraw...
Dan Neidle is the centre left guru on these things usually, it would look weird if they started quibbling with him now all of a sudden
If so he surely didn’t expect to get away with it, after recording a song about Charlie Kirk dying at 31. Which maybe suggests it is NOT him
It's the media and the BBC in particular who wants Starmer's scalp.
It's all gone a bit Carry On Cleo. " Infamy, infamy they've all got it infamy".
1. Reply to a comment way back in the thread that “the UK was swimming in sub-prime” before 2007 and blaming US lending for the crisis is wrong: not the case. The trigger for the crisis was entirely US sub-prime. The UK problem was that our banks had invested heavily in US sub prime CDFs. Take Northern Rock: it had very little of its own sub prime lending. It was bright down by its other balance sheet weaknesses.
2. In good news reminiscent of this week’s ESW/English Fizz triumph, I noted 2 separate foreign colleagues using the term “starter for 10” in a work context. This on top of regular use of “close of play”. The British fightback against US corporate jargon continues!
NEW: The UK government is planning to put illegal migrants into university student accommodation
The Sun
If President Trump tells us the suspect has been arrested, we should find out soon.
The charm of it - such as it is - is the European-ness
There are various cabinet level figures, foreign policy types (including the founder of Visegrad 24), a couple talking about religion and the Govt, and others. The ones that I have listened too are fairly short.
it is afaics aligned with the Trump regime.
There are also some NatConSquad podcasts on the feed, which are essentially youngish intellectuals talking to themselves about why Trump & Co are correct on various current questions.
https://www.youtube.com/@NationalConservatism/videos
The latter wouldn't be the first wrong decision they'd made.
Kirk did receive some criticism for wanting the Epstein files released but apart from that he was lauded by the right .
Do we believe @Dura_Ace is “in Jeddah for immersive Arabic”? He also has military training 🧐
If not him what other PBers? @Anabobazina is strangely absent. Or it could be @williamglenn sublimating his fury at being banned
Not been seen for a day or two. Hot tempered
I actually don’t see why Dan spent any time looking at the tax here - it was obvious from the beginning that the weirdness here is how she got £900,000 to buy the property not weird ways you can own French property
Ukrainian drones strike Russia's largest oil terminal for the first time
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1966481959019852020
Jews ran everything and Hollywood, Marxist conspiracy, etc.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/openai-nvidia-bosses-set-pledge-102811429.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD8WpCrHrBHulwpm5pvYIEQfXfvmx9Y8IooJcD6N9ozWHVZ8pe806T3ZAAqWG6XgwWL1heG2qnB_zNPsx5ld6qdNfta0kqdcIym436p4pMjs-LTpkLF3k6ojDPyekJ91ZWVMCDJx8jg0OrU6lKZtbuhCQ8FGwue7Zbdg7vYS0BtI
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/openai-nvidia-set-announce-uk-data-center-investments-bloomberg-news-reports-2025-09-12/
U.S. religious groups and their political leanings
Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org › short-reads › 2016/02/23
Re your second point, that is really the second point I was also making. Farage has put more effort than many MPs is creating a perception of being local, but has got himself in a pickle by claiming 'he' exchanged on a house and now that is shown not to be the case the issue of who funded the purchase crops up and did she really have the resources to do so having claimed she did. Many other MPs have far less credible stories regarding their local credentials, but aren't getting this scrutiny.
He has actually done nothing wrong and done more than many MPs to create local credentials, but appears to have been tripped up by exaggerating (or lying) about some of it. Many other MPs are probably going 'Phew that could have been me'
@KristenhCNN
The suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk confessed to his father that he was the shooter. His father told authorities and secured his son until they could arrive to pick him up— Sources tell
@evanperez
@HBRabinowitz
@HolmesLybrand
Allegations of an Asian woman raped by two white men who told her she shouldn't be in the UK. Should heavily tatooed Asians start picketing branches of Wetherspoons with signs saying "save are kids"? I believe that is the PB rightist approved response to this kind of incident.
I really don’t regard it as a great deal for the UK
FBI Director Kash Patel holds news conference on Charlie Kirk suspect
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1966484424394187179