Skip to content

This can be classed as a bona fide Brexit dividend – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,479
    Andy_JS said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "‘Thank you for never supporting us’: Is this the world’s most aggressive restaurant closure?

    The owners of Don Ciccio bid farewell after six years in business – but not before accusing locals of ‘sheer indifference’"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/don-ciccio-closes-in-highgate/?recomm_id=d426bab4-171e-40d9-89f8-1aa02e535a06

    The original text is

    The Farewell
    ​Dear residents of Highgate, of the neighbouring villages, of North London, and of London in general, Don Ciccio – Osteria Italiana has closed today, exactly six years after its opening in October 2019. We have closed due to a lack of customers.
    • It wasn’t enough to be Traveller’s Choice 2023 – 2024 – 2025 on Tripadvisor.
    • It wasn’t enough to be told we had one of the best pizzas in London.
    • It wasn’t enough to hold 4.7 stars on Google, with 700 reviews, for every one of those six years.
    • Nor to change our menu each season, roaming through the flavours of Italy.
    We are guests in this country, and as guests, we will not complain. We’ll simply say: addio. And now, with gratitude:
    • ​To our staff — Roberto, Diego, Daniele, the many waiters and chefs who came and went — thank you for your passion, and for enduring the humiliation of entire evenings with an empty dining room.
    • To our faithful customers — we’ll miss you. Perhaps one day we’ll meet again, in Italy.
    • To the community of Highgate and its neighbours —thank you for never supporting us, not even once.
    • To those we served during lockdown, when we were the only restaurant open, thank you for never visiting us once the pandemic ended.
    • To the Highgate Society — thank you for never replying to any of our proposals for collaboration.
    • To those who lived a few doors away yet ordered delivery from somewhere else — thank you for your commitment to distance.
    In short: thank you all for supporting us so perfectly.

    WE MAY BE THE FIRST ITALIAN RESTAURANT TO CLOSE...

    ...not for bad food, bad reviews, or bad luck — but for the sheer indifference of our neighbours.

    To those who said, back in 2019, “they’ll close within three months” —congratulations ! You were only off by five years and nine months. We’re proud to have served the elderly, the children, the families, the lonely, the joyful and the broken alike. At least we did our duty.

    It’s only a drop — soon it will dry. Unless, of course, it’s the beginning of a storm.

    Addio. Goodbye

    https://www.donciccio-highgate.com/
    If they were so good, why weren't they getting enough customers? Either their prices were too high or they weren't quite as good as they believed themselves to be.
    Something I read elsewhere suggested that shopfront had had a series of failed restaurants i.e the location is a problem. Of course, if you're a top-notch special-occasion restaurant location doesn't matter. But for a mid-priced restaurant it really does.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    Is this really true ?

    The average age of U.S. homebuyers is now 56, up from 49 last year.

    In 1981, the year trickledown economics began, it was 31.

    https://x.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1980688688439873717

    Trumpnomics.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,277

    PMQs (I will not mention the substantive topic discussed).

    Starmer’s performance is slipping a bit as he gets more decisions to have to stand behind. Badenoch continues to be clunky but her questioning has got better and her attacks sharper. Their exchanges are very ill mannered now - don’t think there’s any love lost. Neither are great but I do sense a slight shift in fortunes.

    Whereas last week Starmer took a six nil spanking this was something of a no score draw. For once Starmer answered the first question quite comprehensively, Kemi sort of ploughed on regardless. Kemi is nonetheless more confident, not that she was ever shy.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,676
    Nigelb said:

    Is this really true ?

    The average age of U.S. homebuyers is now 56, up from 49 last year.

    In 1981, the year trickledown economics began, it was 31.

    https://x.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1980688688439873717

    Trumpnomics.

    To a certain extent that will reflect an ageing population, with lots of homebuyers being people moving house on retirement, downsizing after the death of a spouse, etc.

    Note it doesn't say "first-time" homebuyers.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,514

    nico67 said:

    So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .

    At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .

    I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
    The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .

    Read section 3 . Clause 4 .

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0234/240234.pdf

    That means they can also deport pensioners .

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,105
    DavidL said:

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    Only Starmer could come up with a scheme that made Rwanda look no more than asinine, expensive and stupid.
    History shall repeat itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,277

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    It would be fascinating to find out which media outlet paid for his second small boat ticket.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    edited 12:31PM

    Nigelb said:

    Is this really true ?

    The average age of U.S. homebuyers is now 56, up from 49 last year.

    In 1981, the year trickledown economics began, it was 31.

    https://x.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1980688688439873717

    Trumpnomics.

    To a certain extent that will reflect an ageing population, with lots of homebuyers being people moving house on retirement, downsizing after the death of a spouse, etc.

    Note it doesn't say "first-time" homebuyers.
    "To a certain extent" really doesn't account for shift in the last twelve months.
    Or, indeed, the last four decades.

    What it does suggest is a collapse in the number of first time buyers.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,413
    edited 12:33PM

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    In, out, shake it all out...Who could have predicted this....

    I imagine all that is going to happen is they get kicked out, they come back, they try the I wasn't safe claim, if they get kicked again, they will come back again and just not claim asylum and disappear straight in the black economy.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,590
    Nigelb said:

    Is this really true ?

    The average age of U.S. homebuyers is now 56, up from 49 last year.

    In 1981, the year trickledown economics began, it was 31.

    https://x.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1980688688439873717

    Trumpnomics.

    Reaganomics.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,354

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    In, out, shake it all out...Who could have predicted this....
    I assume they didn't have to pay the smuggler again. I wonder if the smuggler's have a database to keep tabs on who has paid already.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,354

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    It would be fascinating to find out which media outlet paid for his second small boat ticket.
    Surely the smugglers are advertising a return crossing if kicked out.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,575
    carnforth said:

    Andy_JS said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "‘Thank you for never supporting us’: Is this the world’s most aggressive restaurant closure?

    The owners of Don Ciccio bid farewell after six years in business – but not before accusing locals of ‘sheer indifference’"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/don-ciccio-closes-in-highgate/?recomm_id=d426bab4-171e-40d9-89f8-1aa02e535a06

    The original text is

    The Farewell
    ​Dear residents of Highgate, of the neighbouring villages, of North London, and of London in general, Don Ciccio – Osteria Italiana has closed today, exactly six years after its opening in October 2019. We have closed due to a lack of customers.
    • It wasn’t enough to be Traveller’s Choice 2023 – 2024 – 2025 on Tripadvisor.
    • It wasn’t enough to be told we had one of the best pizzas in London.
    • It wasn’t enough to hold 4.7 stars on Google, with 700 reviews, for every one of those six years.
    • Nor to change our menu each season, roaming through the flavours of Italy.
    We are guests in this country, and as guests, we will not complain. We’ll simply say: addio. And now, with gratitude:
    • ​To our staff — Roberto, Diego, Daniele, the many waiters and chefs who came and went — thank you for your passion, and for enduring the humiliation of entire evenings with an empty dining room.
    • To our faithful customers — we’ll miss you. Perhaps one day we’ll meet again, in Italy.
    • To the community of Highgate and its neighbours —thank you for never supporting us, not even once.
    • To those we served during lockdown, when we were the only restaurant open, thank you for never visiting us once the pandemic ended.
    • To the Highgate Society — thank you for never replying to any of our proposals for collaboration.
    • To those who lived a few doors away yet ordered delivery from somewhere else — thank you for your commitment to distance.
    In short: thank you all for supporting us so perfectly.

    WE MAY BE THE FIRST ITALIAN RESTAURANT TO CLOSE...

    ...not for bad food, bad reviews, or bad luck — but for the sheer indifference of our neighbours.

    To those who said, back in 2019, “they’ll close within three months” —congratulations ! You were only off by five years and nine months. We’re proud to have served the elderly, the children, the families, the lonely, the joyful and the broken alike. At least we did our duty.

    It’s only a drop — soon it will dry. Unless, of course, it’s the beginning of a storm.

    Addio. Goodbye

    https://www.donciccio-highgate.com/
    If they were so good, why weren't they getting enough customers? Either their prices were too high or they weren't quite as good as they believed themselves to be.
    Something I read elsewhere suggested that shopfront had had a series of failed restaurants i.e the location is a problem. Of course, if you're a top-notch special-occasion restaurant location doesn't matter. But for a mid-priced restaurant it really does.
    As my Nan said 45 years ago, what matters is the number of people passing by the shop / pub / restaurant door.

    Because if no-one is walking past you will never have enough customers
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    Every now and then I go back and read the Citizens United ruling to see if it is as unhinged as I thought, and every time I do that I see it is actually far more deranged than I remembered.
    https://x.com/davidsirota/status/1980477850710110425

    I'd forgotten these lines from the jokers on the Supreme Court:
    "...The Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption..."
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,883
    nico67 said:

    nico67 said:

    So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .

    At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .

    I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
    The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .

    Read section 3 . Clause 4 .

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0234/240234.pdf

    That means they can also deport pensioners .

    That will improve the public finances. Can we ask some impoverished but sunny and warm country to set up an enclave for them? It could be called Boomerland.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,164
    "MoreInCommon

    ➡️ REF UK 31% (+1)
    🌹 LAB 22% (nc)
    🌳 CON 19% (-1)
    🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-2)
    🌍 GREEN 10% (+1)
    🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
    ❓OTH 2% (nc)

    x.com/LukeTryl/status/1980903827042890013"
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,590

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "‘Thank you for never supporting us’: Is this the world’s most aggressive restaurant closure?

    The owners of Don Ciccio bid farewell after six years in business – but not before accusing locals of ‘sheer indifference’"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/don-ciccio-closes-in-highgate/?recomm_id=d426bab4-171e-40d9-89f8-1aa02e535a06

    The original text is

    The Farewell
    ​Dear residents of Highgate, of the neighbouring villages, of North London, and of London in general, Don Ciccio – Osteria Italiana has closed today, exactly six years after its opening in October 2019. We have closed due to a lack of customers.
    • It wasn’t enough to be Traveller’s Choice 2023 – 2024 – 2025 on Tripadvisor.
    • It wasn’t enough to be told we had one of the best pizzas in London.
    • It wasn’t enough to hold 4.7 stars on Google, with 700 reviews, for every one of those six years.
    • Nor to change our menu each season, roaming through the flavours of Italy.
    We are guests in this country, and as guests, we will not complain. We’ll simply say: addio. And now, with gratitude:
    • ​To our staff — Roberto, Diego, Daniele, the many waiters and chefs who came and went — thank you for your passion, and for enduring the humiliation of entire evenings with an empty dining room.
    • To our faithful customers — we’ll miss you. Perhaps one day we’ll meet again, in Italy.
    • To the community of Highgate and its neighbours —thank you for never supporting us, not even once.
    • To those we served during lockdown, when we were the only restaurant open, thank you for never visiting us once the pandemic ended.
    • To the Highgate Society — thank you for never replying to any of our proposals for collaboration.
    • To those who lived a few doors away yet ordered delivery from somewhere else — thank you for your commitment to distance.
    In short: thank you all for supporting us so perfectly.

    WE MAY BE THE FIRST ITALIAN RESTAURANT TO CLOSE...

    ...not for bad food, bad reviews, or bad luck — but for the sheer indifference of our neighbours.

    To those who said, back in 2019, “they’ll close within three months” —congratulations ! You were only off by five years and nine months. We’re proud to have served the elderly, the children, the families, the lonely, the joyful and the broken alike. At least we did our duty.

    It’s only a drop — soon it will dry. Unless, of course, it’s the beginning of a storm.

    Addio. Goodbye

    https://www.donciccio-highgate.com/
    Didn't look the most inviting place - frontage could do with a lick of paint.

    image
    It's an awkward spot for a restaurant. It's round the corner from where most foot traffic is. I recall several different restaurants on that site over the years.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,705

    algarkirk said:

    I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.

    I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?

    Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.

    Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.

    Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
    You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
    No quick fixes I'm afraid. It would be a slow cultural evolution, like the long period in which the Jewish community here and in much of Europe went from being persecuted as deicides through nameless horrors to being at the pinnacle of European and American culture, science politics etc.

    But just one quick thought: When (for most of us) Christianity is being thought about, you don't turn immediately and only to the destruction of Beziers, the Roman Catholic demolition of Constantinople and the Russian orthodox backing for the war against Christian Ukraine. We can think about the modern role of the papacy, Mother Theresa, foodbanks, the peaceful and communitarian place of the religion in the UK and the world.

    When discussing Jews we don't turn only to the slaughter of Amalekites and Gaza. We can think about Einstein and Jonathan Sachs and Daniel Barenboim.

    In the west we are not yet there with Islam. I am looking at a photo of the little Islamic bridesmaid at my youngest daughter's very Christian wedding not long ago, and hope for better things.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,589

    I don't want to turn into Scott and paste

    There can be only 1
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,676
    tlg86 said:

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    In, out, shake it all out...Who could have predicted this....
    I assume they didn't have to pay the smuggler again. I wonder if the smuggler's have a database to keep tabs on who has paid already.
    Why would you assume that?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,589

    Sandpit said:

    Battlebus said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "‘Thank you for never supporting us’: Is this the world’s most aggressive restaurant closure?

    The owners of Don Ciccio bid farewell after six years in business – but not before accusing locals of ‘sheer indifference’"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/don-ciccio-closes-in-highgate/?recomm_id=d426bab4-171e-40d9-89f8-1aa02e535a06

    They had a 1 out of 5 health rating before they closed.

    Not surprising no-one was going in.
    Seems to be Zero

    https://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/business/don-ciccio-osteria-siciliana-1356956.html
    Don’t you need to have rats running around the kitchen and staff with no shoes on, to get a zero star rating?
    I once worked in a pub with a decent kitchen. One day, when the boss was on holiday, we were inspected. Fair number of points to put right. But we did a clean and organised what need to be organised (even to the level of different chopping boards for different types of food*) and on re-inspection all was well.

    Its not hard.

    *I do this at home still
    Joseph Joseph make handy sets with different icons on them

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Joseph-60131-Polypropylene-Acrylonitrile-Thermoplastic/dp/B01N0V6SP5
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,514
    Perhaps Reform and the Tories can bring back the Ed Miliband mug .

    This time you can proudly drunk your mug of tea showing you love thought of seeing your neighbours deported .
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,164
    edited 12:46PM
    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,520
    edited 12:48PM
    carnforth said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    Excellent time to fix the cliff edge, then.
    One of the enduring mysteries of British politics that chancellor after chancellor has been and gone, and not one of them has got rid of the stupid cliff edges - not even Truss/Kwarteng, who must have been the most ideologically inclined.

    Why is this? It should be fairly easy to sort in a revenue neutral sort of a way by abolishing the various withdrawals and clawbacks that cause it, then adjusting the headline tax rates/bands to regain the lost revenue.

    As plenty of people have noted, there is lots of evidence for a strong Lauffer effect across these cliff edges, so there is a probably an opportunity to both slightly cut overall tax rates and also increase the tax take in one of those most rare political things - a win-win outcome.

    So - why hasn't any chancellor gone there? It would be in my first budget if I got the job (along with rolling NI into income tax, and abolishing council tax, SDLT and IHT in favour of a 1% levy on property values), but clearly something is stopping them.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,676
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is this really true ?

    The average age of U.S. homebuyers is now 56, up from 49 last year.

    In 1981, the year trickledown economics began, it was 31.

    https://x.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1980688688439873717

    Trumpnomics.

    To a certain extent that will reflect an ageing population, with lots of homebuyers being people moving house on retirement, downsizing after the death of a spouse, etc.

    Note it doesn't say "first-time" homebuyers.
    "To a certain extent" really doesn't account for shift in the last twelve months.
    Or, indeed, the last four decades.

    What it does suggest is a collapse in the number of first time buyers.
    Well, sure. But then just give the number of first-time buyers. Or the average age of first-time buyers.

    The person you've quoted has decided to show a different stat which mixes in different effects in unknown proportions, presumably because it is a more striking result, or because they are deliberately trying to mislead.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,291

    viewcode said:

    Incidentally, somebody has pointed out that Elon talks a pile of shit, and Musk is throwing a strop.

    For all those who don't know, NASA picked SpaceX to build a lunar lander. Elon took the money, then ignored the Moon entirely and concentrated on his Mars rocket (which one day may even reach Earth orbit!). NASA noticed that Elon was playing silly buggers and have reopened the contract.

    Not quite correct.

    SpaceX is behind, but has fulfilled a large number of milestones in the fixed price contract for the lander.

    This is about (a) finding someone to blame when Artemis III slips beyond the end of Trump’s term in office (b) power play by the temporary head of NASA - MAGA loon to the max. (c) poking Musk

    So they need a lander in 30 months.

    - Fiddle with Blue Origin Mk1 lander. Which is small and designed for cargo only. Might or might not work
    - Give $20Bn to the Usual Suspects to build a lander in 30 months. Which can’t work. It would take Boeing and LockMart 30 months to decide the colours for the font for the project.
    Good to know, but does anybody really think Elon will i) build something that will land, ii) build refuelling tankers, and iii) do it in time for Artemis III? The Chinese are planning to get taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and probably will. Musk works to Elon time and doesn't do deadlines.

    It's been suggested that the Dynetics lunar lander is a good bet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics_HLS
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    edited 12:51PM
    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    Really? Average earnings are now rising by 4.8% on latest figures, inflation now only rising by 3.8% today, so 1% below the rise in average wages.

    The minimum wage in the UK is now equivalent to £23,809 for a full time worker over 21. The state pension though is just £14,671.80 per year, significantly below even the minimum wage now and just £11,973 per year for those who retired since 2016
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,413
    edited 12:53PM
    tlg86 said:

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    In, out, shake it all out...Who could have predicted this....
    I assume they didn't have to pay the smuggler again. I wonder if the smuggler's have a database to keep tabs on who has paid already.
    I doubt the smugglers are so kind. One of the dirty secrets of how many pay for their crossing is working illegally in France first. There was the recent cases of the vineyards having been found to using illegal migrant workers and treating them poorly.

    It could be that this policy might have negative knock-on effects that even more use of bonded debt i.e. we will give you a discount on another attempt, but you pay us back by going to work for these people when you arrive.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,312
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.

    I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?

    Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.

    Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.

    Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
    You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
    No quick fixes I'm afraid. It would be a slow cultural evolution, like the long period in which the Jewish community here and in much of Europe went from being persecuted as deicides through nameless horrors to being at the pinnacle of European and American culture, science politics etc.

    But just one quick thought: When (for most of us) Christianity is being thought about, you don't turn immediately and only to the destruction of Beziers, the Roman Catholic demolition of Constantinople and the Russian orthodox backing for the war against Christian Ukraine. We can think about the modern role of the papacy, Mother Theresa, foodbanks, the peaceful and communitarian place of the religion in the UK and the world.

    When discussing Jews we don't turn only to the slaughter of Amalekites and Gaza. We can think about Einstein and Jonathan Sachs and Daniel Barenboim.

    In the west we are not yet there with Islam. I am looking at a photo of the little Islamic bridesmaid at my youngest daughter's very Christian wedding not long ago, and hope for better things.
    The challenge though isn't integrating Islam with a Christian culture, it's integrating Islam with a secular culture. Which I think is more difficult.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,164
    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    I think it's a bit offensive to refer to people in this way, as "boomers" or whatever.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,590
    theProle said:

    carnforth said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    Excellent time to fix the cliff edge, then.
    One of the enduring mysteries of British politics that chancellor after chancellor has been and gone, and not one of them has got rid of the stupid cliff edges - not even Truss/Kwarteng, who must have been the most ideologically inclined.

    Why is this? It should be fairly easy to sort in a revenue neutral sort of a way by abolishing the various withdrawals and clawbacks that cause it, then adjusting the headline tax rates/bands to regain the lost revenue.

    As plenty of people have noted, there is lots of evidence for a strong Lauffer effect across these cliff edges, so there is a probably an opportunity to both slightly cut overall tax rates and also increase the tax take in one of those most rare political things - a win-win outcome.

    So - why hasn't any chancellor gone there? It would be in my first budget if I got the job (along with rolling NI into income tax, and abolishing council tax, SDLT and IHT in favour of a 1% levy on property values), but clearly something is stopping them.
    If you make those changes in a revenue neutral way, then some people gain and some people lose. The people who lose won't vote for you. The people who gain may or may not vote for you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    edited 12:56PM
    Cookie said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.

    I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?

    Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.

    Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.

    Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
    You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
    No quick fixes I'm afraid. It would be a slow cultural evolution, like the long period in which the Jewish community here and in much of Europe went from being persecuted as deicides through nameless horrors to being at the pinnacle of European and American culture, science politics etc.

    But just one quick thought: When (for most of us) Christianity is being thought about, you don't turn immediately and only to the destruction of Beziers, the Roman Catholic demolition of Constantinople and the Russian orthodox backing for the war against Christian Ukraine. We can think about the modern role of the papacy, Mother Theresa, foodbanks, the peaceful and communitarian place of the religion in the UK and the world.

    When discussing Jews we don't turn only to the slaughter of Amalekites and Gaza. We can think about Einstein and Jonathan Sachs and Daniel Barenboim.

    In the west we are not yet there with Islam. I am looking at a photo of the little Islamic bridesmaid at my youngest daughter's very Christian wedding not long ago, and hope for better things.
    The challenge though isn't integrating Islam with a Christian culture, it's integrating Islam with a secular culture. Which I think is more difficult.
    Indeed, conservative evangelical Christians and conservative Roman Catholics and the Orthodox church agree with most Muslim Imams in opposing same sex marriage for instance and opposing trans rights and wanting to reduce abortions. Plus most Muslims and conservative Christians also agree on traditional gender roles for women and believing that men should largely take a leadership role in the workplace and in government and women should focus on being a good wife and raising children.

    It is secular liberals who on cultural matters are even further from Muslims than conservative Christians are
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,684
    Is this happening everywhere in Western Europe at the moment?

    Without going all @Leon do these judges not realise what happens next?

    https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1980924784666956111

    A Swedish court has ruled that the Eritrean migrant who raped 16-year-old Meya Åberg won’t be deported because the rape didn’t last long enough.

    The rape took place on September 1st last year when Meya missed her bus and was walking through a pedestrian tunnel after finishing her shift at McDonald’s.

    Meya and her family immediately reported it to the police.

    The 18-year-old Eritrean migrant, named Yazied Mohamed, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for rape.

    Mohamed is a citizen of Eritrea, and the prosecutor sought his deportation.

    However, the Court of Appeal noted that the man has refugee status. Under Swedish law, deporting a refugee requires that the crime committed constitutes an “exceptionally serious offense” and that allowing them to remain in Sweden would pose a “serious threat to public order and safety.”

    The rape of 16-year-old Meya was not deemed serious enough to justify deportation, with the Court of Appeal citing, among other factors, the “duration” of the rape in its assessment.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,827
    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    Battlebus said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "‘Thank you for never supporting us’: Is this the world’s most aggressive restaurant closure?

    The owners of Don Ciccio bid farewell after six years in business – but not before accusing locals of ‘sheer indifference’"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/don-ciccio-closes-in-highgate/?recomm_id=d426bab4-171e-40d9-89f8-1aa02e535a06

    They had a 1 out of 5 health rating before they closed.

    Not surprising no-one was going in.
    Seems to be Zero

    https://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/business/don-ciccio-osteria-siciliana-1356956.html
    Don’t you need to have rats running around the kitchen and staff with no shoes on, to get a zero star rating?
    I once worked in a pub with a decent kitchen. One day, when the boss was on holiday, we were inspected. Fair number of points to put right. But we did a clean and organised what need to be organised (even to the level of different chopping boards for different types of food*) and on re-inspection all was well.

    Its not hard.

    *I do this at home still
    Joseph Joseph make handy sets with different icons on them

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Joseph-60131-Polypropylene-Acrylonitrile-Thermoplastic/dp/B01N0V6SP5
    I have similar.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,316
    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    Tough on grime, tough on the causes of grime.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,592
    MattW said:

    Good afternoon PB.

    A short commentary on the upcoming Welsh by-election from The Rest is Politics, in which:

    a - Rory the Former Tory uses the phrase "unless I am blowing smoke in my arse" (personally I blow smoke OUT of my arse. Is the other a Tory thing?).
    b - Odds are explained.

    Also some decent chatter. I have had mercy and the deep link avoids the Google AI promotional spot.

    https://youtu.be/F-ivM2L2dHQ?t=1739

    Blowing smoke up the arse is the usual construction I think. Obviously you need a second party for this to take place, unless you’re a contortionist.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,495

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    Tough on grime, tough on the causes of grime.
    ..


  • TazTaz Posts: 21,674
    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,705

    algarkirk said:

    I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.

    I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?

    Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.

    Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.

    Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
    You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
    Do you mean that what I say is without meaning, or that it isn't possible to work out all the long term policies and implications, or something else.

    That what I say has meaning is clear. The meaning changes drastically if you negative most of the sentences, which is quite a decent test.

    If I am right about the facts but you think there are no solutions, I accept you may be correct. But I hope not.

    I doubt is law is the major thing. The post war shift in the status of the Jewish comunity in the UK (I was brought up post WWII in a Jewish part of London) was not mostly about law.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,804

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    Tough on grime, tough on the causes of grime.
    You're back?
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,674

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    It would be fascinating to find out which media outlet paid for his second small boat ticket.
    Probably,one of the many pro migrant lobby groups, law firms or charities
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,676
    theProle said:

    carnforth said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    Excellent time to fix the cliff edge, then.
    One of the enduring mysteries of British politics that chancellor after chancellor has been and gone, and not one of them has got rid of the stupid cliff edges - not even Truss/Kwarteng, who must have been the most ideologically inclined.

    Why is this? It should be fairly easy to sort in a revenue neutral sort of a way by abolishing the various withdrawals and clawbacks that cause it, then adjusting the headline tax rates/bands to regain the lost revenue.

    As plenty of people have noted, there is lots of evidence for a strong Lauffer effect across these cliff edges, so there is a probably an opportunity to both slightly cut overall tax rates and also increase the tax take in one of those most rare political things - a win-win outcome.

    So - why hasn't any chancellor gone there? It would be in my first budget if I got the job (along with rolling NI into income tax, and abolishing council tax, SDLT and IHT in favour of a 1% levy on property values), but clearly something is stopping them.
    Same reason lots of other sensible things haven't been done, and the same reason why Osborne introduced the withdrawal - politics.

    Even if you claw the money back with an extra percent or three on income tax above £100k, people will talk about restoring the personal allowance to higher earners in isolation as a huge tax cut for a rich minority.

    And since with politics these days, "if you're explaining, you're losing," no-one is willing to make the case for it.

    You could probably judge the seriousness of British politics at an arbitrary date in the future by whether this issue has been fixed.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,312

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    A friend of mine was fined for inadvertently dropping a bit of tissue in Manchester. Meanwhile, Piccadilly Gardens is full of scrotes and illegal immigrants who treat the place like one massive skip and do so unchallenged by authority. It does feel very much like the law only gets applied to the law-abiding.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,377
    Sandpit said:

    Is this happening everywhere in Western Europe at the moment?

    Without going all @Leon do these judges not realise what happens next?

    https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1980924784666956111

    A Swedish court has ruled that the Eritrean migrant who raped 16-year-old Meya Åberg won’t be deported because the rape didn’t last long enough.

    The rape took place on September 1st last year when Meya missed her bus and was walking through a pedestrian tunnel after finishing her shift at McDonald’s.

    Meya and her family immediately reported it to the police.

    The 18-year-old Eritrean migrant, named Yazied Mohamed, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for rape.

    Mohamed is a citizen of Eritrea, and the prosecutor sought his deportation.

    However, the Court of Appeal noted that the man has refugee status. Under Swedish law, deporting a refugee requires that the crime committed constitutes an “exceptionally serious offense” and that allowing them to remain in Sweden would pose a “serious threat to public order and safety.”

    The rape of 16-year-old Meya was not deemed serious enough to justify deportation, with the Court of Appeal citing, among other factors, the “duration” of the rape in its assessment.

    My view is that you should define seriousness of crime legislatively, based on sentence. Anyone who commits crime with a sentence over x is deemed to have withdrawn their application for asylum.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,827
    Andy_JS said:

    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    I think it's a bit offensive to refer to people in this way, as "boomers" or whatever.
    Dad was born in 1939. After a few years in the grenadier guards he did thirty years as a policeman, ending as am acting superintendent. Next year he will have been retired for thirty years, having left age 57. I am now four years away from 57 but the chance of retiring is at least a decade off.

    Of course dad had challenges through his life, but I reckon he's had a pretty good crack at it.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,827
    Sandpit said:

    Is this happening everywhere in Western Europe at the moment?

    Without going all @Leon do these judges not realise what happens next?

    https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1980924784666956111

    A Swedish court has ruled that the Eritrean migrant who raped 16-year-old Meya Åberg won’t be deported because the rape didn’t last long enough.

    The rape took place on September 1st last year when Meya missed her bus and was walking through a pedestrian tunnel after finishing her shift at McDonald’s.

    Meya and her family immediately reported it to the police.

    The 18-year-old Eritrean migrant, named Yazied Mohamed, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for rape.

    Mohamed is a citizen of Eritrea, and the prosecutor sought his deportation.

    However, the Court of Appeal noted that the man has refugee status. Under Swedish law, deporting a refugee requires that the crime committed constitutes an “exceptionally serious offense” and that allowing them to remain in Sweden would pose a “serious threat to public order and safety.”

    The rape of 16-year-old Meya was not deemed serious enough to justify deportation, with the Court of Appeal citing, among other factors, the “duration” of the rape in its assessment.

    Its like being a little bit pregnant. Utter nonsense.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    .
    nico67 said:

    Just imagine you’re living in the UK and could fall under the Tory/Reform proposals .

    You’re now put in a horrific situation of not knowing whether you might be deported after the next election . The stress of living under this cloud , what might happen to your family etc .

    And politicians spew out these policies without giving a flying fxck what the impact might be on real people.

    Once you start de-humanising people and just see them as data points it should be a wake up call and people need to realize that once they’ve come for that group who will be next .

    These really are dark times .

    It's beginning to look as though Bedenoch's "we'll model immigration enforcement along the lines of ICE" was quite literal, after all.
    If the Tory party is going to be Reform with a blue rinse, there's no real point to it anymore.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    A friend of mine was fined for inadvertently dropping a bit of tissue in Manchester. Meanwhile, Piccadilly Gardens is full of scrotes and illegal immigrants who treat the place like one massive skip and do so unchallenged by authority. It does feel very much like the law only gets applied to the law-abiding.
    Whom they can rely on to pay.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,676

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    Target culture.

    Law-abiding folk are easy targets. It's much more efficient to focus on them.

    This is what happens when you over centralise a system and are trying to monitor performance from the centre with statistics and metrics.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,277
    tlg86 said:

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    It would be fascinating to find out which media outlet paid for his second small boat ticket.
    Surely the smugglers are advertising a return crossing if kicked out.
    That's nice of them.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,413
    edited 1:12PM

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    Target culture.

    Law-abiding folk are easy targets. It's much more efficient to focus on them.

    This is what happens when you over centralise a system and are trying to monitor performance from the centre with statistics and metrics.
    Absolultely.

    If you own your own home, drive a car with the legal plates, etc, its trivial to identify you and fine you. And the culture has increasingly become strict liability, any minor indescretion, instant punishment no matter how minor, if it was first time offence or how inadvertent.

    But don't bother taxing or insuring your car, run around on illegal plates, etc....computer says no....
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,674

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    The usual retort from these sorts is along the lines of ‘if she didn’t want the fine she shouldn’t have done it’. It’s simply easy targets. Many councils use civil enforcement where it is subcontracted to companies who get a cut of any money raised. Just ignore them and walk off.

    Of course proper fly tippers rarely are troubled by such inconveniences.

    This case in Kent was even more bizarre. A man was fined because a friend threw away a letter that was over a decade old, which had his name on.

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-fined-500-after-friend-32697496
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,105
    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I can't understand why NI has not been extended to those working past retirement age. Even if it was a reduced rate it would be something.

    A few years ago there was talk of trying to incentivise retirees back into work. I get that but if someone has retired from a 40k job it's unlikely because the take home pay is only 34.5k.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,164

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    Target culture.

    Law-abiding folk are easy targets. It's much more efficient to focus on them.

    This is what happens when you over centralise a system and are trying to monitor performance from the centre with statistics and metrics.
    Absolultely.

    If you own your own home, drive a car with the legal plates, etc, its trivial to identify you and fine you. And the culture has increasingly become strict liability, any minor indescretion, instant punishment no matter how minor, if it was first time offence or how inadvertent.
    If Farage becomes PM this is the sort of thing people will want sorting out.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,120
    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    Really? Average earnings are now rising by 4.8% on latest figures, inflation now only rising by 3.8% today, so 1% below the rise in average wages.

    The minimum wage in the UK is now equivalent to £23,809 for a full time worker over 21. The state pension though is just £14,671.80 per year, significantly below even the minimum wage now and just £11,973 per year for those who retired since 2016
    Yet average pensioner disposable income has been above average worker disposable income for some years, now, because pensioner housing costs are usually so much less. In France, they’ve reached the point where pensioner income is above worker income, which is absurd.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,277
    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I have previously opined that we should have been required to pay back our furlough payments on an interest free, or nominal interest basis. Your party loved a free bung until it didn't.

    Likewise anyone supplying dodgy PPE should be personally chased down without hiding behind limited liability. Your party loved a grift, and probably still does.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,684

    Sandpit said:

    Is this happening everywhere in Western Europe at the moment?

    Without going all @Leon do these judges not realise what happens next?

    https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1980924784666956111

    A Swedish court has ruled that the Eritrean migrant who raped 16-year-old Meya Åberg won’t be deported because the rape didn’t last long enough.

    The rape took place on September 1st last year when Meya missed her bus and was walking through a pedestrian tunnel after finishing her shift at McDonald’s.

    Meya and her family immediately reported it to the police.

    The 18-year-old Eritrean migrant, named Yazied Mohamed, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for rape.

    Mohamed is a citizen of Eritrea, and the prosecutor sought his deportation.

    However, the Court of Appeal noted that the man has refugee status. Under Swedish law, deporting a refugee requires that the crime committed constitutes an “exceptionally serious offense” and that allowing them to remain in Sweden would pose a “serious threat to public order and safety.”

    The rape of 16-year-old Meya was not deemed serious enough to justify deportation, with the Court of Appeal citing, among other factors, the “duration” of the rape in its assessment.

    My view is that you should define seriousness of crime legislatively, based on sentence. Anyone who commits crime with a sentence over x is deemed to have withdrawn their application for asylum.
    Yes that would make much more sense, although the side-effect would be the same judges who write such judgments as above would instead tie themselves in knots to keep the sentence below that required.

    The impression given is that judges in general care more for the offender than the victim, who in this case is a child who will be scarred for life.

    It feeds into a narrative that ‘the system’ works against regular people, and it’s how we end up with extremist politicians elected.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,889
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    A friend of mine was fined for inadvertently dropping a bit of tissue in Manchester. Meanwhile, Piccadilly Gardens is full of scrotes and illegal immigrants who treat the place like one massive skip and do so unchallenged by authority. It does feel very much like the law only gets applied to the law-abiding.
    The law abiding are far less likely to test the effectiveness of your stab vest.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,736
    Andy_JS said:

    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    I think it's a bit offensive to refer to people in this way, as "boomers" or whatever.
    Don't dehumanise the Boomers!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,413
    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    It's not just that.
    If you're carrying on business diligently, then the cost of avoiding minor indiscretions, by complying with the growing thicket of regulation, is increasing every year.
    Yes that is another good point.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389

    Sandpit said:

    Is this happening everywhere in Western Europe at the moment?

    Without going all @Leon do these judges not realise what happens next?

    https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1980924784666956111

    A Swedish court has ruled that the Eritrean migrant who raped 16-year-old Meya Åberg won’t be deported because the rape didn’t last long enough.

    The rape took place on September 1st last year when Meya missed her bus and was walking through a pedestrian tunnel after finishing her shift at McDonald’s.

    Meya and her family immediately reported it to the police.

    The 18-year-old Eritrean migrant, named Yazied Mohamed, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for rape.

    Mohamed is a citizen of Eritrea, and the prosecutor sought his deportation.

    However, the Court of Appeal noted that the man has refugee status. Under Swedish law, deporting a refugee requires that the crime committed constitutes an “exceptionally serious offense” and that allowing them to remain in Sweden would pose a “serious threat to public order and safety.”

    The rape of 16-year-old Meya was not deemed serious enough to justify deportation, with the Court of Appeal citing, among other factors, the “duration” of the rape in its assessment.

    My view is that you should define seriousness of crime legislatively, based on sentence. Anyone who commits crime with a sentence over x is deemed to have withdrawn their application for asylum.
    There are many ways of doing it.
    Sweden seems to have got it wrong.

    Labour seem now to have opted for a plain custodial sentence = deportation.
    (Though not yet legislated.)
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn72dknzepjo
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,120
    edited 1:19PM
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    A friend of mine was fined for inadvertently dropping a bit of tissue in Manchester. Meanwhile, Piccadilly Gardens is full of scrotes and illegal immigrants who treat the place like one massive skip and do so unchallenged by authority. It does feel very much like the law only gets applied to the law-abiding.
    It’s not that. These councils have these enforcement wardens, who are usually private contractors who turn out to be ‘incentivised’, one way or another, to maximise the amount they bring in in fines, which the council itself doesn’t mind as those fines are an income stream for the council. Since the fixed penalty is a flat rate amount, inevitably this means that the wardens focus on the low hanging fruit - the favourite is hanging around the local tube or overground station when the commuters return from central London, and following the smokers who light up as soon as they emerge from the station, knowing that after their relief fag they’re likely to drop the butt onto the street. The time and hassle involved in trying to catch the more difficult, if more socially harmful, cases means they tend to get much less attention.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,413
    edited 1:20PM
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    Target culture.

    Law-abiding folk are easy targets. It's much more efficient to focus on them.

    This is what happens when you over centralise a system and are trying to monitor performance from the centre with statistics and metrics.
    Absolultely.

    If you own your own home, drive a car with the legal plates, etc, its trivial to identify you and fine you. And the culture has increasingly become strict liability, any minor indescretion, instant punishment no matter how minor, if it was first time offence or how inadvertent.
    If Farage becomes PM this is the sort of thing people will want sorting out.
    At this point, it would require a total shift in the way so many people have been trained to do their job for the state. It requires a Thatcher-esque level of determination to get such a culture shift. Not sure the old Farage is the right man for the job.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,267
    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    It's not just that.
    If you're carrying on business diligently, then the cost of avoiding minor indiscretions, by complying with the growing thicket of regulation, is increasing every year.
    At the heart of it we have a society that has become over regulated, life too complicated, habits too entrenched.

    This is the sort of reform I’d love a centre-right outfit to be really examining.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,413
    edited 1:24PM
    Graffiti is a particular bug bear of mine. Tagging everything that doesn't move. Because we have as a society (and its true across Europe) just sort of shrugged at it and rarely the people are ever caught or punished, its just effectively legalised these days.

    Try that shit in Asia or the Middle East.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,674
    nico67 said:

    Perhaps Reform and the Tories can bring back the Ed Miliband mug .

    This time you can proudly drunk your mug of tea showing you love thought of seeing your neighbours deported .

    If that’s the policy, sign me up 👍
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,674
    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I just have an aversion to taxing employment rather than income. Extending the scope of NI is another option for sure.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,684
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this happening everywhere in Western Europe at the moment?

    Without going all @Leon do these judges not realise what happens next?

    https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1980924784666956111

    A Swedish court has ruled that the Eritrean migrant who raped 16-year-old Meya Åberg won’t be deported because the rape didn’t last long enough.

    The rape took place on September 1st last year when Meya missed her bus and was walking through a pedestrian tunnel after finishing her shift at McDonald’s.

    Meya and her family immediately reported it to the police.

    The 18-year-old Eritrean migrant, named Yazied Mohamed, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for rape.

    Mohamed is a citizen of Eritrea, and the prosecutor sought his deportation.

    However, the Court of Appeal noted that the man has refugee status. Under Swedish law, deporting a refugee requires that the crime committed constitutes an “exceptionally serious offense” and that allowing them to remain in Sweden would pose a “serious threat to public order and safety.”

    The rape of 16-year-old Meya was not deemed serious enough to justify deportation, with the Court of Appeal citing, among other factors, the “duration” of the rape in its assessment.

    My view is that you should define seriousness of crime legislatively, based on sentence. Anyone who commits crime with a sentence over x is deemed to have withdrawn their application for asylum.
    There are many ways of doing it.
    Sweden seems to have got it wrong.

    Labour seem now to have opted for a plain custodial sentence = deportation.
    (Though not yet legislated.)
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn72dknzepjo
    Would deportations apply to asylum-seekers, or to those granted asylum?

    That was the key point in the Sweden case.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,676

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    It's not just that.
    If you're carrying on business diligently, then the cost of avoiding minor indiscretions, by complying with the growing thicket of regulation, is increasing every year.
    At the heart of it we have a society that has become over regulated, life too complicated, habits too entrenched.

    This is the sort of reform I’d love a centre-right outfit to be really examining.
    I think this is less of a left/right issue and more of a centralisation/localism axis, which is why it's hard to discern a difference between Labour or Tories on this.

    I do not think Reform are going to be any different.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,736

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I can't understand why NI has not been extended to those working past retirement age. Even if it was a reduced rate it would be something.

    A few years ago there was talk of trying to incentivise retirees back into work. I get that but if someone has retired from a 40k job it's unlikely because the take home pay is only 34.5k.
    Yes it's illogical because it implies (wrongly) that NI is a ringfenced pot for pensions.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,291

    Andy_JS said:

    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    I think it's a bit offensive to refer to people in this way, as "boomers" or whatever.
    Dad was born in 1939. After a few years in the grenadier guards he did thirty years as a policeman, ending as am acting superintendent. Next year he will have been retired for thirty years, having left age 57. I am now four years away from 57 but the chance of retiring is at least a decade off.

    Of course dad had challenges through his life, but I reckon he's had a pretty good crack at it.
    Boomers are born 1946 to 1964 inclusive. Your Dad is not a boomer
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,164
    Sad news — former Tory MP for Plymouth, Oliver Colvile, has died.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjrydelwwwo
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,413
    edited 1:30PM

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    It's not just that.
    If you're carrying on business diligently, then the cost of avoiding minor indiscretions, by complying with the growing thicket of regulation, is increasing every year.
    At the heart of it we have a society that has become over regulated, life too complicated, habits too entrenched.

    This is the sort of reform I’d love a centre-right outfit to be really examining.
    I think this is less of a left/right issue and more of a centralisation/localism axis, which is why it's hard to discern a difference between Labour or Tories on this.

    I do not think Reform are going to be any different.
    The interview with John Gray that was posted on previous thread was interesting listen for this. His take the failure of the centralised technocratic solution to everything and of course the worse the quality of the politician the more they just rely even more heavily on the established process norms of technocratic suggested solutions to every problem.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,731
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Incidentally, somebody has pointed out that Elon talks a pile of shit, and Musk is throwing a strop.

    For all those who don't know, NASA picked SpaceX to build a lunar lander. Elon took the money, then ignored the Moon entirely and concentrated on his Mars rocket (which one day may even reach Earth orbit!). NASA noticed that Elon was playing silly buggers and have reopened the contract.

    Not quite correct.

    SpaceX is behind, but has fulfilled a large number of milestones in the fixed price contract for the lander.

    This is about (a) finding someone to blame when Artemis III slips beyond the end of Trump’s term in office (b) power play by the temporary head of NASA - MAGA loon to the max. (c) poking Musk

    So they need a lander in 30 months.

    - Fiddle with Blue Origin Mk1 lander. Which is small and designed for cargo only. Might or might not work
    - Give $20Bn to the Usual Suspects to build a lander in 30 months. Which can’t work. It would take Boeing and LockMart 30 months to decide the colours for the font for the project.
    Good to know, but does anybody really think Elon will i) build something that will land, ii) build refuelling tankers, and iii) do it in time for Artemis III? The Chinese are planning to get taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and probably will. Musk works to Elon time and doesn't do deadlines.

    It's been suggested that the Dynetics lunar lander is a good bet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics_HLS
    It isn’t

    The Dynetics bid for the contract that SpaceX won had a small flaw. It had negative payload mass.

    Yes, it could only carry less than nothing.

    Dynetics said they could engineer a fix….

    The option of using an adapted Blue Mk1 lander is the only one that is vaguely possible.

    SpaceX are proceeding about as fast as they can.

    To understand the scale of the problem for using other, traditional vendors and concepts, consider the following - there is doubt at whether they can stack Artemis III on the pad in *two years* following Artemis II (launch Feb next year)

    Meanwhile SpaceX is asking for 25 launch permits for Boca Chica for next year. That is, they want to launch, potentially, once every two weeks.

    And they are building another launch facility at the Cape.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    .

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Woman is fined £150 for pouring coffee down a drain - after being 'chased' by three jobsworth council officers"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15215979/Woman-fined-150-jobsworth-council-officers-pouring-coffee-drain.html

    This is a classic gripe I am interestingly hearing from even left leaning friends.

    If you working hard, paying your taxes, doing the right thing, the state has found 27,000 ways to punish minor indescretions and increasingly efficient at it.

    If you just don't get a f##k, the punishments are neglible from the police ignoring it, absolutely useless at finding these people , and even if they do things like fines spread over many years set at tiny weekly amounts.

    That's from illegal businesses to scrotes who are shoplifting, nicking phones, letting off illegal fireworks etc.
    It's not just that.
    If you're carrying on business diligently, then the cost of avoiding minor indiscretions, by complying with the growing thicket of regulation, is increasing every year.
    At the heart of it we have a society that has become over regulated, life too complicated, habits too entrenched.

    This is the sort of reform I’d love a centre-right outfit to be really examining.
    At this point, it's surely a pragmatic issue rather than one of left v right ?
    It's what I'd like any non-crazy party to be examining.

    The only real lovers of more and more regulation are those who make money off it (a depressingly large number), and those who weaponise it (NIMBYs, for example).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,034
    Foss said:

    algarkirk said:

    I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.

    I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?

    Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.

    Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.

    Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
    You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
    Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
    That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
    Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,674

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I have previously opined that we should have been required to pay back our furlough payments on an interest free, or nominal interest basis. Your party loved a free bung until it didn't.

    Likewise anyone supplying dodgy PPE should be personally chased down without hiding behind limited liability. Your party loved a grift, and probably still does.
    Since her rather tin eared ‘thanks for the birthday wishes’ tweet while enjoying some opulence it’s all gone quiet on the odious Medpro lot.

    I’d guess we won’t get our cash back and would have been better settling for the 23 million offered.

    In the meantime HMRC will be targetting people selling items on eBay and Vinted and helping themselves to cash from their account.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,827

    Graffiti is a particular bug bear of mine. Tagging everything that doesn't move. Because we have as a society (and its true across Europe) just sort of shrugged at it and rarely the people are ever caught or punished, its just effectively legalised these days.

    Try that shit in Asia or the Middle East.

    Not just things that don't move - so many railway wagons get sprayed that there is there is a thriving market for modelled versions (or the transfers to adorn your favourite model railway rolling stock).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    Nigelb said:

    Every now and then I go back and read the Citizens United ruling to see if it is as unhinged as I thought, and every time I do that I see it is actually far more deranged than I remembered.
    https://x.com/davidsirota/status/1980477850710110425

    I'd forgotten these lines from the jokers on the Supreme Court:
    "...The Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption..."

    Trump's ballroom donors include:

    -Google, whose CEO thanked Trump for "resolution" of an antitrust case
    -Palantir, which has lucrative contracts with ICE
    -Blackstone's Stephen Schwarzman, who would profit from Trump's regulatory rollbacks for private equity..

    https://x.com/RBReich/status/1980744707077476417
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,261

    Andy_JS said:

    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    I think it's a bit offensive to refer to people in this way, as "boomers" or whatever.
    Dad was born in 1939. After a few years in the grenadier guards he did thirty years as a policeman, ending as am acting superintendent. Next year he will have been retired for thirty years, having left age 57. I am now four years away from 57 but the chance of retiring is at least a decade off.

    Of course dad had challenges through his life, but I reckon he's had a pretty good crack at it.
    My dad retired at 55 and died at 96 on an inflation proof pension. I think it is putting it mildly to say he did ok out of it.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,827
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Battlebus said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Yes, pension tax relief at the higher rates is just about the biggest thing left that you can do without raising income tax, corporation tax, or VAT.

    There will be quite the second-order effects though, of early retirements and four-day weeks, there’s a lot of people who stuff their pension to avoid the £100k cliff edge at the moment.
    I remember when I got it being flabbergasted by the generosity. I thought it was a mistake until I checked.
    Seems that the Boomers have made off with the tax benefits and it's the up and coming *working* generation that is going to be hammered for triple lock and the like. Perhaps the boomers could make a gesture and forego triple lock.
    I think it's a bit offensive to refer to people in this way, as "boomers" or whatever.
    Dad was born in 1939. After a few years in the grenadier guards he did thirty years as a policeman, ending as am acting superintendent. Next year he will have been retired for thirty years, having left age 57. I am now four years away from 57 but the chance of retiring is at least a decade off.

    Of course dad had challenges through his life, but I reckon he's had a pretty good crack at it.
    Boomers are born 1946 to 1964 inclusive. Your Dad is not a boomer
    Perhaps not, but it cannot be denied he has had a fantastic deal.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,164
    Dividing people by what generation they belong to isn't a good way to do things imo.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,674
    MattW said:

    Good afternoon PB.

    A short commentary on the upcoming Welsh by-election from The Rest is Politics, in which:

    a - Rory the Former Tory uses the phrase "unless I am blowing smoke in my arse" (personally I blow smoke OUT of my arse. Is the other a Tory thing?).
    b - Odds are explained.

    Also some decent chatter. I have had mercy and the deep link avoids the Google AI promotional spot.

    https://youtu.be/F-ivM2L2dHQ?t=1739

    I’ve had a few quid on PC based on the odds.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,165
    nico67 said:

    nico67 said:

    So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .

    At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .

    I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
    The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .

    Read section 3 . Clause 4 .

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0234/240234.pdf

    That means they can also deport pensioners .

    Where are they planning to deport me to?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,034
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I can't understand why NI has not been extended to those working past retirement age. Even if it was a reduced rate it would be something.

    A few years ago there was talk of trying to incentivise retirees back into work. I get that but if someone has retired from a 40k job it's unlikely because the take home pay is only 34.5k.
    Yes it's illogical because it implies (wrongly) that NI is a ringfenced pot for pensions.
    Public sector pension schemes (some anyway) penalise anyone who comes back to the same job or a related one (this could IIRC include a change of school for a teacher, say). Their pension is docked. Not quite sure of the logic there - or whether they can accrue further pension. But it happens.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,277
    Taz said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I have previously opined that we should have been required to pay back our furlough payments on an interest free, or nominal interest basis. Your party loved a free bung until it didn't.

    Likewise anyone supplying dodgy PPE should be personally chased down without hiding behind limited liability. Your party loved a grift, and probably still does.
    Since her rather tin eared ‘thanks for the birthday wishes’ tweet while enjoying some opulence it’s all gone quiet on the odious Medpro lot.

    I’d guess we won’t get our cash back and would have been better settling for the 23 million offered.

    In the meantime HMRC will be targetting people selling items on eBay and Vinted and helping themselves to cash from their account.
    I was shocked a couple of years ago to discover I had to pay VAT on my Chinese tat (not PPE) from AliExpress.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,277
    AnneJGP said:

    nico67 said:

    nico67 said:

    So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .

    At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .

    I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
    The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .

    Read section 3 . Clause 4 .

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0234/240234.pdf

    That means they can also deport pensioners .

    Where are they planning to deport me to?
    ConHome?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    Sandpit said:

    Ukraine and Sweden sign long-term commercial agreement for up to 150 Gripen jets.

    https://x.com/clashreport/status/1980990151108239689

    Possibly inevitable, once Trump became president.
    A very welcome development though.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,291

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Incidentally, somebody has pointed out that Elon talks a pile of shit, and Musk is throwing a strop.

    For all those who don't know, NASA picked SpaceX to build a lunar lander. Elon took the money, then ignored the Moon entirely and concentrated on his Mars rocket (which one day may even reach Earth orbit!). NASA noticed that Elon was playing silly buggers and have reopened the contract.

    Not quite correct.

    SpaceX is behind, but has fulfilled a large number of milestones in the fixed price contract for the lander.

    This is about (a) finding someone to blame when Artemis III slips beyond the end of Trump’s term in office (b) power play by the temporary head of NASA - MAGA loon to the max. (c) poking Musk

    So they need a lander in 30 months.

    - Fiddle with Blue Origin Mk1 lander. Which is small and designed for cargo only. Might or might not work
    - Give $20Bn to the Usual Suspects to build a lander in 30 months. Which can’t work. It would take Boeing and LockMart 30 months to decide the colours for the font for the project.
    Good to know, but does anybody really think Elon will i) build something that will land, ii) build refuelling tankers, and iii) do it in time for Artemis III? The Chinese are planning to get taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and probably will. Musk works to Elon time and doesn't do deadlines.

    It's been suggested that the Dynetics lunar lander is a good bet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics_HLS
    It isn’t

    The Dynetics bid for the contract that SpaceX won had a small flaw. It had negative payload mass.

    Yes, it could only carry less than nothing.

    Dynetics said they could engineer a fix….

    The option of using an adapted Blue Mk1 lander is the only one that is vaguely possible.

    SpaceX are proceeding about as fast as they can.

    To understand the scale of the problem for using other, traditional vendors and concepts, consider the following - there is doubt at whether they can stack Artemis III on the pad in *two years* following Artemis II (launch Feb next year)

    Meanwhile SpaceX is asking for 25 launch permits for Boca Chica for next year. That is, they want to launch, potentially, once every two weeks.

    And they are building another launch facility at the Cape.
    Yes I know about Dynetics' negative mass problem. Reduce the crew to two, ditch one of the solar panels or batteries, reduce the flight duration to two days, take the cockpit walls off (they can piss/poo in their suits for two days), make the framework out of a lighter material - hell, wood if necessary - and voila! Suddenly it's light enough. Give it to a bunch of students in a provincial college with a vice and drills, see what they can do in a month. It's easier and quicker to improve a basic design than it is to build a new one from scratch. Give it to Boeing, they'll spend years producing something that'll kill you. Sierra Nevada fucked up with Dream Chaser. Lockheed Martin will produce something that is beautiful and will work, but it'll cost trillions. Blue Origin will produce something by 2040 with a feather on the side that will topple over. SpaceX will land on the wrong planet. There's nothing else left.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,276
    edited 1:46PM

    The first asylum seeker returned to France under the swapsies scheme has returned to Britain on a small boat.

    The Home Office have said: "Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the UK illegally will be removed."

    I guess we'll see what happens with that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/22/man-sent-to-france-under-one-in-one-out-scheme-returns-to-uk-on-small-boat

    42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.

    Idea: anyone who makes it across 5 times should be offered an automatic commission into the Royal Marines.

    10+ years service and they get British Citizenship.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,291

    AnneJGP said:

    nico67 said:

    nico67 said:

    So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .

    At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .

    I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
    The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .

    Read section 3 . Clause 4 .

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0234/240234.pdf

    That means they can also deport pensioners .

    Where are they planning to deport me to?
    ConHome?
    Harsh.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    AnneJGP said:

    nico67 said:

    nico67 said:

    So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .

    At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .

    I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
    The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .

    Read section 3 . Clause 4 .

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0234/240234.pdf

    That means they can also deport pensioners .

    Where are they planning to deport me to?
    I doubt they've even thought that far ahead.
    The malice is the point.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,291
    Sandpit said:

    Ukraine and Sweden sign long-term commercial agreement for up to 150 Gripen jets.

    https://x.com/clashreport/status/1980990151108239689

    Excellent news!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,034
    edited 1:47PM

    Taz said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Barnesian said:

    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.

    Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
    Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
    Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.

    It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
    Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
    Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.

    It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
    The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.

    A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)

    Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
    Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.

    Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
    No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,

    Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
    I have previously opined that we should have been required to pay back our furlough payments on an interest free, or nominal interest basis. Your party loved a free bung until it didn't.

    Likewise anyone supplying dodgy PPE should be personally chased down without hiding behind limited liability. Your party loved a grift, and probably still does.
    Since her rather tin eared ‘thanks for the birthday wishes’ tweet while enjoying some opulence it’s all gone quiet on the odious Medpro lot.

    I’d guess we won’t get our cash back and would have been better settling for the 23 million offered.

    In the meantime HMRC will be targetting people selling items on eBay and Vinted and helping themselves to cash from their account.
    I was shocked a couple of years ago to discover I had to pay VAT on my Chinese tat (not PPE) from AliExpress.
    Was always the case: it's only that HMRC started applying it much more consistently. There was a temporal connexion (about 10 years ago?) with the row about HMRC handing big corporations big concessions after cosy dinners, and I always affected to believe that dunning us was how HMRC made up for the big discounts to the fat cats.

    Plus import duty if it's above some figure - I forget what it is but believe it depends on the details. Plus a ransom demand, sorry handling fee, from the RM or your courier if applicable.

    OTOH it's increasingly more likely the3se days that you get charged VAT at source at least by the more reputable and organised vendors. New agreements in operation.

    Never forgiven one courier (not RM) for looking at a military history book from the USA, instantly concludingf it was a computer game with the same name only inverted, and then charging me VAT and handling fee ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    Carnyx said:

    Foss said:

    algarkirk said:

    I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.

    I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?

    Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.

    Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.

    Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
    You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
    Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
    That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
    Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
    I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.

    I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.

    The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
Sign In or Register to comment.