I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I keep telling you.... Fickle, them voters.
Remember all those people before GE2024 saying things couldn't possibly be any worse with Labour?
Well, here we are.
We'd be in a much better place economically had we retained Rishi/Hunt, which of course is why we voted for them at the time.
Attlee’s view of Reeves would have been;
“Sorry, not up to it.”
Atlee had a somewhat brutal effectiveness. Some say it came from the trenches in WWI.
There were few who thought him a starter, Many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM, an Earl and a Knight of the Garter.
Good stuff, though his characterisation of the commonwealth as an alternative looks anachronistic now. I think even if we hadn't joined the EU, commonwealth ties would have tailed off pretty quickly.
Not really, he's arguing that the Commonwealth is the progressive choice and the open-minded one.
A perfectly reasonable view and, indeed, a logical one.
Did nothing for the economy; probably the opposite.
If we had worked *with* India to help them out if autarkic isolation, they would be where China is now, economically.
For example.
An India with the economy of China might be a bigger threat to the world.
My dislike of Reeves was kindled when I heard her pre-election chit-chat with Bad Al and Rory Stewart.
In a generally soft-ball interview, Stewart innocently asked whether her tax plans would be sufficient, and Reeves jumped down his throat and started ranting about Tory effrontery.
She’s obviously quite a bitter individual, and as we’ve now discovered, destructively useless as well.
She's bitter that she never held a real job in the city and I think she not so secretly hates the economic engine of the UK because it chewed her up and spat her out early in her career and shunted her into a customer service role for a retail bank.
The rumour is that the top rate or tax will go up to 49% (47% IT and 2% NI) or a 64% marginal rate in the £100-125k income band. Any of the last few Labour supporters want to tell me that either of these rates aren't work disincentives?
This country is a joke and the Laboir party are having a laugh at our expense.
I think there is a bigger problem lower down in the payscale.
From my anecdotal experience the people dropping to 4 day weeks are typically people on £50k - £80k who are paired up, have a mortgage, and/or have kids, so the leisure/work balance has hit the top rate of tax at 45% here in Scotland and the decision is obvious. Those on £100k in my line of work tend to be highly driven and for them, frankly, the cash is only a small part of why they work so hard - it's more about prestige/power. I think this is why the £100k band effect is difficult to discern in the data.
Essentially the Treasury is taking advantage of the hustle of people working for their first flat or are highly driven, and the inversion point on the laffer curve is actually very high for these individuals - possibly even as high as 70%. If I were Reeves, I'd be much more concerned about how to keep parents and people with mortgages working 35+ hours, where the point could be as low as 30%.
I missed an important point - there are many, many more people earning in and around £50k than £100k. So while I think sorting the silly cliff edge out is important, this incessant focus on the highest earners is unwarranted imo - there is more potential to generate more output lower down the pay distribution.
Another aspect is how different public sector pension contributions are increased as salaries are higher. For instance with teachers, up to £35k its 7.4% of salary, at £47k its 9.9%.
The rumours of dropping the higher rate to £46k has been enough for the Mrs to put her papers in for four day week. Her pension contributions have more or less netted her salary so it only just dips into the higher rate. Well done Rachel..
I'm sure this doesn't apply to Mrs Cumberland, but another depressing figure from a depressing survey by Dan Neildle's think tank;
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or “a substantial amount of extra tax” I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree.
As a nation, we're not very clueful. This is a problem.
(As for what I'd do- it has to be taxing residential property, becuase that's where all the money ended up. I've seen 1% a year suggested as enough to properly fix the hole, and replace stamp duty and take social care out of council tax. Does that work? Let people roll it up if they are cash-poor, and let Ko-Ko, The Lord High Executioner of Titipu find a solution to valuation.)
I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I keep telling you.... Fickle, them voters.
Remember all those people before GE2024 saying things couldn't possibly be any worse with Labour?
Well, here we are.
We'd be in a much better place economically had we retained Rishi/Hunt, which of course is why we voted for them at the time.
Attlee’s view of Reeves would have been;
“Sorry, not up to it.”
It is going to be very interesting to read the post-mortem of this period of Labour government, particularly from those on the inside.
Reeves’ trajectory is fascinating. This is someone who keeps trying to play political games - WFA, messaging over last years budget, welfare cuts, manifesto pledges etc - and just seems to fail to land it every time that she tries.
She was never the most dynamic or exciting political figure but I will say that I think the past 18 months have taken a huge toll on her. I commented the other day that she looks haunted. She is now much less confident and much more stilted in her delivery. She can’t get through a sentence without about 5 or 6 “errs” or “umms”. She seems to have had a severe crisis of confidence, in my opinion, as a result of seeing all of her previous actions seemingly fail.
Politics is a rough game. I think she’s been found wanting in this role, and I think she’s should really be stepping down (she won’t, of course).
Her main achievement in office, probably only one, is being the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Who’d replace her ? Darren Jones ?
Could any chancellor get measures that annoy vocal parts of the electorate past labours stupid backbenchers. Many of whom, like the Lib Dem’s, still want to give billions we don’t have to the likes of the WASPI women
You seen obsessed with WASPI women. Which is the party that, when in opposition, hasn't given the WASPI women a promise? Even the Tories, having turned them down flat when in power, tried to make capital out of Labour doing precisely the same, criticised their rejection of the compensation, and accusing them of "betrayal"
I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I keep telling you.... Fickle, them voters.
Remember all those people before GE2024 saying things couldn't possibly be any worse with Labour?
Well, here we are.
We'd be in a much better place economically had we retained Rishi/Hunt, which of course is why we voted for them at the time.
We certainly wouldn't have spunked £40bn on public sector pay rises and the NHS that's for damn sure. What a complete disaster this bunch of idiots have been. £60bn in extra borrowing per year and literally nothing to show for it.
There's no doubt that with a Sunak Government we would be in a (slightly) better position than now. But it would still be a beleaguered, small majority Government, with no clear direction and no real solutions. It would be what it was - managed decline. And a confident Labour opposition would be looming, ready for the landslide next time.
This way is better. Labour has been utterly found out and will be out of power for a generation. Both the Tories and Reform are straining themselves to get ready on policy and show that they can get us out of this mess - I've never seen this much focus on policy in all the time I've been observing UK politics. I think this is what needed to happen.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Not going to happen. If car taxation is anything to go by, we will probably get a "pay per minute watched" premium ontop of the existing fee and a tax on every new telly bought....
My dislike of Reeves was kindled when I heard her pre-election chit-chat with Bad Al and Rory Stewart.
In a generally soft-ball interview, Stewart innocently asked whether her tax plans would be sufficient, and Reeves jumped down his throat and started ranting about Tory effrontery.
She’s obviously quite a bitter individual, and as we’ve now discovered, destructively useless as well.
She's bitter that she never held a real job in the city and I think she not so secretly hates the economic engine of the UK because it chewed her up and spat her out early in her career and shunted her into a customer service role for a retail bank.
The rumour is that the top rate or tax will go up to 49% (47% IT and 2% NI) or a 64% marginal rate in the £100-125k income band. Any of the last few Labour supporters want to tell me that either of these rates aren't work disincentives?
This country is a joke and the Laboir party are having a laugh at our expense.
I think there is a bigger problem lower down in the payscale.
From my anecdotal experience the people dropping to 4 day weeks are typically people on £50k - £80k who are paired up, have a mortgage, and/or have kids, so the leisure/work balance has hit the top rate of tax at 45% here in Scotland and the decision is obvious. Those on £100k in my line of work tend to be highly driven and for them, frankly, the cash is only a small part of why they work so hard - it's more about prestige/power. I think this is why the £100k band effect is difficult to discern in the data.
Essentially the Treasury is taking advantage of the hustle of people working for their first flat or are highly driven, and the inversion point on the laffer curve is actually very high for these individuals - possibly even as high as 70%. If I were Reeves, I'd be much more concerned about how to keep parents and people with mortgages working 35+ hours, where the point could be as low as 30%.
I missed an important point - there are many, many more people earning in and around £50k than £100k. So while I think sorting the silly cliff edge out is important, this incessant focus on the highest earners is unwarranted imo - there is more potential to generate more output lower down the pay distribution.
Another aspect is how different public sector pension contributions are increased as salaries are higher. For instance with teachers, up to £35k its 7.4% of salary, at £47k its 9.9%.
The rumours of dropping the higher rate to £46k has been enough for the Mrs to put her papers in for four day week. Her pension contributions have more or less netted her salary so it only just dips into the higher rate. Well done Rachel..
I'm sure this doesn't apply to Mrs Cumberland, but another depressing figure from a depressing survey by Dan Neildle's think tank;
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or “a substantial amount of extra tax” I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree.
As a nation, we're not very clueful. This is a problem.
(As for what I'd do- it has to be taxing residential property, becuase that's where all the money ended up. I've seen 1% a year suggested as enough to properly fix the hole, and replace stamp duty and take social care out of council tax. Does that work? Let people roll it up if they are cash-poor, and let Ko-Ko, The Lord High Executioner of Titipu find a solution to valuation.)
I certainly think more financial and numeracy clue would be useful, but more interesting than "how much of the population understands how the low to high rate band works" would be "how much of the population with some likelihood of making that much money understand it". If you've never earned more than 40K you won't have had any reason to think about how it much affect you and your beliefs about it won't be affecting your behaviour much anyway.
My dislike of Reeves was kindled when I heard her pre-election chit-chat with Bad Al and Rory Stewart.
In a generally soft-ball interview, Stewart innocently asked whether her tax plans would be sufficient, and Reeves jumped down his throat and started ranting about Tory effrontery.
She’s obviously quite a bitter individual, and as we’ve now discovered, destructively useless as well.
She's bitter that she never held a real job in the city and I think she not so secretly hates the economic engine of the UK because it chewed her up and spat her out early in her career and shunted her into a customer service role for a retail bank.
The rumour is that the top rate or tax will go up to 49% (47% IT and 2% NI) or a 64% marginal rate in the £100-125k income band. Any of the last few Labour supporters want to tell me that either of these rates aren't work disincentives?
This country is a joke and the Laboir party are having a laugh at our expense.
I think there is a bigger problem lower down in the payscale.
From my anecdotal experience the people dropping to 4 day weeks are typically people on £50k - £80k who are paired up, have a mortgage, and/or have kids, so the leisure/work balance has hit the top rate of tax at 45% here in Scotland and the decision is obvious. Those on £100k in my line of work tend to be highly driven and for them, frankly, the cash is only a small part of why they work so hard - it's more about prestige/power. I think this is why the £100k band effect is difficult to discern in the data.
Essentially the Treasury is taking advantage of the hustle of people working for their first flat or are highly driven, and the inversion point on the laffer curve is actually very high for these individuals - possibly even as high as 70%. If I were Reeves, I'd be much more concerned about how to keep parents and people with mortgages working 35+ hours, where the point could be as low as 30%.
I missed an important point - there are many, many more people earning in and around £50k than £100k. So while I think sorting the silly cliff edge out is important, this incessant focus on the highest earners is unwarranted imo - there is more potential to generate more output lower down the pay distribution.
Another aspect is how different public sector pension contributions are increased as salaries are higher. For instance with teachers, up to £35k its 7.4% of salary, at £47k its 9.9%.
The rumours of dropping the higher rate to £46k has been enough for the Mrs to put her papers in for four day week. Her pension contributions have more or less netted her salary so it only just dips into the higher rate. Well done Rachel..
I'm sure this doesn't apply to Mrs Cumberland, but another depressing figure from a depressing survey by Dan Neildle's think tank;
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or “a substantial amount of extra tax” I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree.
As a nation, we're not very clueful. This is a problem.
(As for what I'd do- it has to be taxing residential property, becuase that's where all the money ended up. I've seen 1% a year suggested as enough to properly fix the hole, and replace stamp duty and take social care out of council tax. Does that work? Let people roll it up if they are cash-poor, and let Ko-Ko, The Lord High Executioner of Titipu find a solution to valuation.)
I self assess and fully aware how taxes work, and I've explained it to her, but she is so affronted by the amount of tax she is already paying, the suggestion that she needs to be squeezed further has been enough for her to say f**k it. Until date of birth syndrome got hold of her she would have seen herself as quite left wing and progressive.
My dislike of Reeves was kindled when I heard her pre-election chit-chat with Bad Al and Rory Stewart.
In a generally soft-ball interview, Stewart innocently asked whether her tax plans would be sufficient, and Reeves jumped down his throat and started ranting about Tory effrontery.
She’s obviously quite a bitter individual, and as we’ve now discovered, destructively useless as well.
She's bitter that she never held a real job in the city and I think she not so secretly hates the economic engine of the UK because it chewed her up and spat her out early in her career and shunted her into a customer service role for a retail bank.
The rumour is that the top rate or tax will go up to 49% (47% IT and 2% NI) or a 64% marginal rate in the £100-125k income band. Any of the last few Labour supporters want to tell me that either of these rates aren't work disincentives?
This country is a joke and the Laboir party are having a laugh at our expense.
I think there is a bigger problem lower down in the payscale.
From my anecdotal experience the people dropping to 4 day weeks are typically people on £50k - £80k who are paired up, have a mortgage, and/or have kids, so the leisure/work balance has hit the top rate of tax at 45% here in Scotland and the decision is obvious. Those on £100k in my line of work tend to be highly driven and for them, frankly, the cash is only a small part of why they work so hard - it's more about prestige/power. I think this is why the £100k band effect is difficult to discern in the data.
Essentially the Treasury is taking advantage of the hustle of people working for their first flat or are highly driven, and the inversion point on the laffer curve is actually very high for these individuals - possibly even as high as 70%. If I were Reeves, I'd be much more concerned about how to keep parents and people with mortgages working 35+ hours, where the point could be as low as 30%.
I missed an important point - there are many, many more people earning in and around £50k than £100k. So while I think sorting the silly cliff edge out is important, this incessant focus on the highest earners is unwarranted imo - there is more potential to generate more output lower down the pay distribution.
There’s also a significant cliff edge for many at £50k with the child benefit withdrawal. A number that hasn’t risen with inflation.
£60k now after it was changed but the point remains
There are two cliff edges around £100,000. One is income tax but there is also a loss of free childcare if either parent earns six figures. So we have families going part time and salary sacrificing into their pensions (and saving higher rate tax) in order to stay below £199,000 to cop free childcare but something something triple lock.
Selective editing of Trump footage to make it look like he was calling for insurrection, IIRC? Also a fairly damning report dropped end of last week showing biases in output.
Selective editing of Trump footage to make it look like he was calling for insurrection, IIRC? Also a fairly damning report dropped end of last week showing biases in output.
I wonder if the people who actually did it be sanctioned in anyway? I bet those responsible for things like broadcasting Bobby Antisemitism are still in place.
Selective editing of Trump footage to make it look like he was calling for insurrection, IIRC? Also a fairly damning report dropped end of last week showing biases in output.
It was hideous, truly Orwellian, a mightily overused term. In a speech he told his supporters to go and march to the capital, peacefully and patriotically, they spliced that bit out and to another part of the speech when he was telling his supporters to fight like hell.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
Selective editing of Trump footage to make it look like he was calling for insurrection, IIRC? Also a fairly damning report dropped end of last week showing biases in output.
I wonder if the people who actually did it be sanctioned in anyway? I bet those responsible for things like broadcasting Bobby Antisemitism are still in place.
I doubt there's been any chopping of permanent staff after the numerous recent scandals in reporting, they've offed anyone who was just a contractor to be seen to be doing something.
The merger of BBC News channels and BBC World has also been dire, alongside cuts to local news, as we saw last week when they had virtually no one in the UK during a major news story on a Saturday night.
I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I think Rishi may go, reputationally, the same way as John Major. Presided over an election smash but now rather more popular than the successor who won the huge majority.
Nah Major/Clarke didn't spend their time in office primarily concerned with laying traps for the incoming government.
The top 10% of UK income earners are incredibly steeply taxed.
Wealth is barely taxed.
So we simply penalise strivers and entrepreneurs to pay for elderly home-owners to take cruises.
It's remarkable the personal resentment I now feel when I see a group of laughing bronzed retirees sitting around enjoying themselves - and there really are rather a lot of them - whilst criticising the young for not working hard enough and complaining all the time.
Biting my tongue isn't snough.
Yep. My 86 year old father ticks into 30 years retired next May. That’s the same length of time he served in the police that still means he takes home £4500 month.
The top 10% of UK income earners are incredibly steeply taxed.
Wealth is barely taxed.
So we simply penalise strivers and entrepreneurs to pay for elderly home-owners to take cruises.
It's remarkable the personal resentment I now feel when I see a group of laughing bronzed retirees sitting around enjoying themselves - and there really are rather a lot of them - whilst criticising the young for not working hard enough and complaining all the time.
Biting my tongue isn't snough.
Yep. My 86 year old father ticks into 30 years retired next May. That’s the same length of time he served in the police that still means he takes home £4500 month.
I'm part of a dining club, youngest there. Mostly retirees telling us of the cruise theyve just been on. Many of them, similar, retired in their late 50s.
Anybody who thinks Trump didn't want his supporters to march on the Capitol and try and reverse the election results should not be trusted with scissors...
Reading through the day's missives, an enormous amount of, to be blunt, hatred but let's call it contempt for Rachel Reeves. I seem to recall she was considered the answer after Anneliese Dodds who was also subject to the usual vitriol was sacked by Starmer.
My take on Reeves? She looks overwhelmed and perhaps rightly so - the scale of what she faces would daunt most of us and let's be fair Hunt did the sum total of nothing in his time at No.11.
Back we go to what should/can she do - Budgets are political as much as economic exercises and Conservatives will be watching to see how effective Badenoch's response is in the House.
How do you reduce borrowing if you can't make meaningful cuts . We can have a pop at "public sector" pensions but it's chicken feed and we are committed to rises in defence, welfare and presumably no one wants further cuts in local Government etc and short of defaulting on our debts, the small matter of billions of debt interest payments per annum will need to be dealt with.
There's always those on benefits who we can demonise by calling them "lazy" or "scroungers" or whatever makes us feel better.
The short term aim is probably to slow the borrowing train - bringing it to a stop will take years. Tax rises, both direct and indirect, will have to happen and for all people whinge about it, until and unless Reeves does something radical such as taxing property and land it'll be income taxes, fuel duty, gaming duty etc where the "pain" will be felt. I'd like to know where she sees borrowing in 2028/29 compared to now.
It seems demographic changes are forcing economic and societal changes and the old models simply don't work any more. I also think, post Covid, atittudes to work have changed and it is no longer (for most) the be all and end all. We work to live, we don't live to work and while some on here will doubtless disagree, I think that's where more people are and if your lifestyle supports a lower income (and again lifestyle aspiration is moving on from tangible materialist symbols of "happiness" to something else) so be it.
The top 10% of UK income earners are incredibly steeply taxed.
Wealth is barely taxed.
So we simply penalise strivers and entrepreneurs to pay for elderly home-owners to take cruises.
It's remarkable the personal resentment I now feel when I see a group of laughing bronzed retirees sitting around enjoying themselves - and there really are rather a lot of them - whilst criticising the young for not working hard enough and complaining all the time.
Biting my tongue isn't snough.
Yep. My 86 year old father ticks into 30 years retired next May. That’s the same length of time he served in the police that still means he takes home £4500 month.
I'm part of a dining club, youngest there. Mostly retirees telling us of the cruise theyve just been on. Many of them, similar, retired in their late 50s...
Asylum seekers are to be given £100 a week to leave taxpayer-funded hotels under plans being considered by ministers.
Home Office officials are proposing the migrants use the money to pay to live with a family or individual they know as part of Sir Keir Starmer’s drive to accelerate the closure of asylum hotels.
It is understood the £100 a week would be provided on top of their taxpayer-funded support for living costs of £49.18 a week for migrants in hotels.
The plan, to be trialled in 2026, could cut the cost of housing asylum seekers to a seventh of the total currently paid to accommodate them in hotels.
Anybody who thinks Trump didn't want his supporters to march on the Capitol and try and reverse the election results should not be trusted with scissors...
C’mon, Trumpy was just advising all those sightseers queuing to see the Capitol to fight like hell for their place in the line, just got out of hand is all. Who hasn’t shit on the desk of one of their lawmakers having unexpectedly gained access to a seat of government?
Anybody who thinks Trump didn't want his supporters to march on the Capitol and try and reverse the election results should not be trusted with scissors...
And the scissors* used for cutting film together? Who shall we trust with them?
A Russian opposition activist arrested in Poland and due to go on trial next month has admitted he worked as an undercover agent for Russia’s FSB security service and informed on other opposition figures, court documents claim.
Igor Rogov, 30, has been associated with various opposition movements in the Russian city of Saransk, including Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation and Open Russia, linked to the exiled businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I think Rishi may go, reputationally, the same way as John Major. Presided over an election smash but now rather more popular than the successor who won the huge majority.
Nah Major/Clarke didn't spend their time in office primarily concerned with laying traps for the incoming government.
Quite the opposite, in fact. A one-nation Conservative government intent on good governance and handing on the best possible state to the next Govt. We didn't know when we had it good. Well not good exactly (eg the ERM kerfuffle) but at least not melting in place like that guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
It was literally three sections of his speech spliced together and intercut with crowd footage so you couldn't see the joins, followed by footage of the 'subsequent' marching off to storm the Capitol that actually happened before the speech.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
Quite. The journalistic standards expected would show the clip of him telling them to march peacefully and patriotically, then show the bit later, explain how it was later in the speech and then examine whether this was a metaphor (all politicians use the metaphor of fight when it comes to politically opponents) , was he intentionally, or even unintentionally winding up the crowd fermenting unrest in his speech?
Then you can come to a conclusion and ask the audience to come to theirs. It makes me feel dirty to defend him, i hate defending sore losers, which it seemed to me to be his biggest crime. But in the great book of crimes, being a sore loser is up there with queue jumping. It shows how much of a repulsive character you are.
The Trump stuff isn't he only time in recent past e.g. the first big BBC Verify series did a similar thing with Carl Benjamin. Whatever you think of him personally, they made all sorts of false claims about him and his activities that were easy to verify.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
How far apart were the relevant lines? Far enough apart to make a televisual ellipsis legitimate? The sexing up here seems pretty minor compared with the infamous coining of that phrase.
Besides, given that Tim Davie was appointed in the Johnson years, it seems pretty likely that his successor will be more friendly to the current government than he was.
If the right regard this as a win, they may need to re-read the story of Pyrrhus of Epirus.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
It was literally three sections of his speech spliced together and intercut with crowd footage so you couldn't see the joins, followed by footage of the 'subsequent' marching off to storm the Capitol that actually happened before the speech.
This from the organisation that piously has a news division called “verify” that they cross promote at every opportunity.
Anybody who thinks Trump didn't want his supporters to march on the Capitol and try and reverse the election results should not be trusted with scissors...
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
How far apart were the relevant lines? Far enough apart to make a televisual ellipsis legitimate? The sexing up here seems pretty minor compared with the infamous coining of that phrase.
Besides, given that Tim Davie was appointed in the Johnson years, it seems pretty likely that his successor will be more friendly to the current government than he was.
If the right regard this as a win, they may need to re-read the story of Pyrrhus of Epirus.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
It was literally three sections of his speech spliced together and intercut with crowd footage so you couldn't see the joins, followed by footage of the 'subsequent' marching off to storm the Capitol that actually happened before the speech.
Every news report of every politicians speech is history is made my splicing together different sections of the speech intercut with other footage. It's like why Match of the Day doesn't simply rebroadcast the whole 90 minutes of a match. EDITED HIGHLIGHTS
The top 10% of UK income earners are incredibly steeply taxed.
Wealth is barely taxed.
So we simply penalise strivers and entrepreneurs to pay for elderly home-owners to take cruises.
It's remarkable the personal resentment I now feel when I see a group of laughing bronzed retirees sitting around enjoying themselves - and there really are rather a lot of them - whilst criticising the young for not working hard enough and complaining all the time.
Biting my tongue isn't snough.
Yep. My 86 year old father ticks into 30 years retired next May. That’s the same length of time he served in the police that still means he takes home £4500 month.
I'm part of a dining club, youngest there. Mostly retirees telling us of the cruise theyve just been on. Many of them, similar, retired in their late 50s.
Pension provision notwithstanding, the other factor might be downsizing.
Assuming you bought a property in the 80s or 90s and assuming you paid off the mortgage during the extended period of low interest rates, releasing the equity on your four or five bedroom family home is going to provide a nice pot of cash and yes you need somewhere to live but even so you'll still have a nice retirement pot to spend.
Seeing your family home increase in value many times must be reassuring - my parents' home went up 33 fold in as many years from 1967 to 2000 and for larger suburban properties it must be similar today.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Anybody who thinks Trump didn't want his supporters to march on the Capitol and try and reverse the election results should not be trusted with scissors...
Not really the point, though.
I don't doubt the BBC have done lots of things wrong
Misrepresenting the Mad King is not really one of them
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
How far apart were the relevant lines? Far enough apart to make a televisual ellipsis legitimate? The sexing up here seems pretty minor compared with the infamous coining of that phrase.
Besides, given that Tim Davie was appointed in the Johnson years, it seems pretty likely that his successor will be more friendly to the current government than he was.
If the right regard this as a win, they may need to re-read the story of Pyrrhus of Epirus.
It wasn't a minor change. They took a bit in which he was telling his supporters to go and march using his typically fiery language and clearly used the words "peacefully and patriotically". The BBC removed that and spliced in the part about fighting like hell or you wont have a country again which was over an hour later, off script and a ramble about the future.
The BBC arent alone in putting these out of order, many media organisations did so. It was too good an opportunity to miss.
Does anyone know why the Channel 4 app has started audibly warning me that "for contractual reasons this programme does contain some commercial messages" when I watch American sitcoms?
My dislike of Reeves was kindled when I heard her pre-election chit-chat with Bad Al and Rory Stewart.
In a generally soft-ball interview, Stewart innocently asked whether her tax plans would be sufficient, and Reeves jumped down his throat and started ranting about Tory effrontery.
She’s obviously quite a bitter individual, and as we’ve now discovered, destructively useless as well.
She's bitter that she never held a real job in the city and I think she not so secretly hates the economic engine of the UK because it chewed her up and spat her out early in her career and shunted her into a customer service role for a retail bank.
The rumour is that the top rate or tax will go up to 49% (47% IT and 2% NI) or a 64% marginal rate in the £100-125k income band. Any of the last few Labour supporters want to tell me that either of these rates aren't work disincentives?
This country is a joke and the Laboir party are having a laugh at our expense.
I think there is a bigger problem lower down in the payscale.
From my anecdotal experience the people dropping to 4 day weeks are typically people on £50k - £80k who are paired up, have a mortgage, and/or have kids, so the leisure/work balance has hit the top rate of tax at 45% here in Scotland and the decision is obvious. Those on £100k in my line of work tend to be highly driven and for them, frankly, the cash is only a small part of why they work so hard - it's more about prestige/power. I think this is why the £100k band effect is difficult to discern in the data.
Essentially the Treasury is taking advantage of the hustle of people working for their first flat or are highly driven, and the inversion point on the laffer curve is actually very high for these individuals - possibly even as high as 70%. If I were Reeves, I'd be much more concerned about how to keep parents and people with mortgages working 35+ hours, where the point could be as low as 30%.
I missed an important point - there are many, many more people earning in and around £50k than £100k. So while I think sorting the silly cliff edge out is important, this incessant focus on the highest earners is unwarranted imo - there is more potential to generate more output lower down the pay distribution.
There’s also a significant cliff edge for many at £50k with the child benefit withdrawal. A number that hasn’t risen with inflation.
£60k now after it was changed but the point remains
It would be better if most people didn’t need child benefit to be honest. Either that or everyone gets it regardless of income.
A hero who tried to fight off the Huntingdon train attacker has been refused a refund by Ryanair after his injuries left him unable to fly.
Stephen Crean, 61, had planned to fly to Austria on Wednesday to watch his beloved Nottingham Forest take on SK Sturm Graz in the Europa League.
But Mr Crean was left unable to travel after being stabbed six times in the attack on the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Doncaster to London Kings Cross train on Nov 1.
Anybody who thinks Trump didn't want his supporters to march on the Capitol and try and reverse the election results should not be trusted with scissors...
C’mon, Trumpy was just advising all those sightseers queuing to see the Capitol to fight like hell for their place in the line, just got out of hand is all. Who hasn’t shit on the desk of one of their lawmakers having unexpectedly gained access to a seat of government?
Of course. But I'm quite OK with the idea that someone senior at the Beeb takes responsibility for a piece of sub par journalism.
That would be another thing that sets it apart from most media.
A hero who tried to fight off the Huntingdon train attacker has been refused a refund by Ryanair after his injuries left him unable to fly.
Stephen Crean, 61, had planned to fly to Austria on Wednesday to watch his beloved Nottingham Forest take on SK Sturm Graz in the Europa League.
But Mr Crean was left unable to travel after being stabbed six times in the attack on the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Doncaster to London Kings Cross train on Nov 1.
Would they pay out for I tried to stop a madmen stabbing people? I could see lots of Travel Insurers (they are absolutely bastards) saying well that was your choice so it wasn't an accidental injury.
Does anyone know why the Channel 4 app has started audibly warning me that "for contractual reasons this programme does contain some commercial messages" when I watch American sitcoms?
“Product placement”, not allowed in UK programming but commonplace in US.
I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I keep telling you.... Fickle, them voters.
Remember all those people before GE2024 saying things couldn't possibly be any worse with Labour?
Well, here we are.
We'd be in a much better place economically had we retained Rishi/Hunt, which of course is why we voted for them at the time.
We certainly wouldn't have spunked £40bn on public sector pay rises and the NHS that's for damn sure. What a complete disaster this bunch of idiots have been. £60bn in extra borrowing per year and literally nothing to show for it.
There's no doubt that with a Sunak Government we would be in a (slightly) better position than now. But it would still be a beleaguered, small majority Government, with no clear direction and no real solutions. It would be what it was - managed decline. And a confident Labour opposition would be looming, ready for the landslide next time.
This way is better. Labour has been utterly found out and will be out of power for a generation. Both the Tories and Reform are straining themselves to get ready on policy and show that they can get us out of this mess - I've never seen this much focus on policy in all the time I've been observing UK politics. I think this is what needed to happen.
Instead you’ll get the Greens to do a left wing government “properly”.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
It was literally three sections of his speech spliced together and intercut with crowd footage so you couldn't see the joins, followed by footage of the 'subsequent' marching off to storm the Capitol that actually happened before the speech.
Every news report of every politicians speech is history is made my splicing together different sections of the speech intercut with other footage. It's like why Match of the Day doesn't simply rebroadcast the whole 90 minutes of a match. EDITED HIGHLIGHTS
If your match highlights had shown Manchester United winning a game by 3 2, when the final score was actually 4 3 to Arsenal, your boss might be wanting a word.
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
It’s the Trump thing that has broken the camels back, but for me the drip, drip, drip around trans and Gaza has been far, far worse.
Huw Paedo scandal was handled awfully....I presume he still hasn't given back all those £100k's Tim Davie paid him and then asked nicely if he would mind giving it back.
My dislike of Reeves was kindled when I heard her pre-election chit-chat with Bad Al and Rory Stewart.
In a generally soft-ball interview, Stewart innocently asked whether her tax plans would be sufficient, and Reeves jumped down his throat and started ranting about Tory effrontery.
She’s obviously quite a bitter individual, and as we’ve now discovered, destructively useless as well.
She's bitter that she never held a real job in the city and I think she not so secretly hates the economic engine of the UK because it chewed her up and spat her out early in her career and shunted her into a customer service role for a retail bank.
The rumour is that the top rate or tax will go up to 49% (47% IT and 2% NI) or a 64% marginal rate in the £100-125k income band. Any of the last few Labour supporters want to tell me that either of these rates aren't work disincentives?
This country is a joke and the Laboir party are having a laugh at our expense.
I think there is a bigger problem lower down in the payscale.
From my anecdotal experience the people dropping to 4 day weeks are typically people on £50k - £80k who are paired up, have a mortgage, and/or have kids, so the leisure/work balance has hit the top rate of tax at 45% here in Scotland and the decision is obvious. Those on £100k in my line of work tend to be highly driven and for them, frankly, the cash is only a small part of why they work so hard - it's more about prestige/power. I think this is why the £100k band effect is difficult to discern in the data.
Essentially the Treasury is taking advantage of the hustle of people working for their first flat or are highly driven, and the inversion point on the laffer curve is actually very high for these individuals - possibly even as high as 70%. If I were Reeves, I'd be much more concerned about how to keep parents and people with mortgages working 35+ hours, where the point could be as low as 30%.
I missed an important point - there are many, many more people earning in and around £50k than £100k. So while I think sorting the silly cliff edge out is important, this incessant focus on the highest earners is unwarranted imo - there is more potential to generate more output lower down the pay distribution.
Another aspect is how different public sector pension contributions are increased as salaries are higher. For instance with teachers, up to £35k its 7.4% of salary, at £47k its 9.9%.
The rumours of dropping the higher rate to £46k has been enough for the Mrs to put her papers in for four day week. Her pension contributions have more or less netted her salary so it only just dips into the higher rate. Well done Rachel..
I'm sure this doesn't apply to Mrs Cumberland, but another depressing figure from a depressing survey by Dan Neildle's think tank;
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or “a substantial amount of extra tax” I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree.
As a nation, we're not very clueful. This is a problem.
(As for what I'd do- it has to be taxing residential property, becuase that's where all the money ended up. I've seen 1% a year suggested as enough to properly fix the hole, and replace stamp duty and take social care out of council tax. Does that work? Let people roll it up if they are cash-poor, and let Ko-Ko, The Lord High Executioner of Titipu find a solution to valuation.)
I self assess and fully aware how taxes work, and I've explained it to her, but she is so affronted by the amount of tax she is already paying, the suggestion that she needs to be squeezed further has been enough for her to say f**k it. Until date of birth syndrome got hold of her she would have seen herself as quite left wing and progressive.
Doesn't this happen as people get better off? At a much lower level of income (ie I'm not an HR taxpayer) I got to an "oh fuck it" moment, decided I could afford to pay off my mortgage and live off my pension, and retired at just over 60. My main budgeting problem is how much beer can I afford to drink and how many trips away I can afford next May.
My basic needs are met, my main issue is social contact for which I need beer money.
the Board of Deputies of British Jews said: “Tim Davie’s and Deborah Turness’s resignations must be seen as the beginning, rather than the end, of a process of renewal. Deep cultural change will be necessary to once again restore trust in one of our nation’s most cherished institutions.”
"Tim Davie's and Deborah Turness's resignations must be seen as the beginning, rather than the end, of a process of renewal. Deep cultural change will be necessary to once again restore trust in one of our nation's most cherished institutions."
Our full statement below: pic.twitter.com/Gp5TOPjJiW
— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) November 9, 2025
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
It was literally three sections of his speech spliced together and intercut with crowd footage so you couldn't see the joins, followed by footage of the 'subsequent' marching off to storm the Capitol that actually happened before the speech.
Every news report of every politicians speech is history is made my splicing together different sections of the speech intercut with other footage. It's like why Match of the Day doesn't simply rebroadcast the whole 90 minutes of a match. EDITED HIGHLIGHTS
I can't believe that so many are outing themselves as utter loons by defending this turpitude.
Well, I can given the culprits, though TUD does usually maintain a fairly convincing veneer of sanity.
I imagine if you only watch the BBC and read the Guardian you will be rather surprised by the news this evening. They managed to avoid any mention there might be any issue after the whistleblower.
A hero who tried to fight off the Huntingdon train attacker has been refused a refund by Ryanair after his injuries left him unable to fly.
Stephen Crean, 61, had planned to fly to Austria on Wednesday to watch his beloved Nottingham Forest take on SK Sturm Graz in the Europa League.
But Mr Crean was left unable to travel after being stabbed six times in the attack on the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Doncaster to London Kings Cross train on Nov 1.
Would they pay out for I tried to stop a madmen stabbing people? I could see lots of Travel Insurers (they are absolutely bastards) saying well that was your choice so it wasn't an accidental injury.
"we dont cover terrorist offences" "it wasnt a terrorist incident" "dunno, sounded like one"
A hero who tried to fight off the Huntingdon train attacker has been refused a refund by Ryanair after his injuries left him unable to fly.
Stephen Crean, 61, had planned to fly to Austria on Wednesday to watch his beloved Nottingham Forest take on SK Sturm Graz in the Europa League.
But Mr Crean was left unable to travel after being stabbed six times in the attack on the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Doncaster to London Kings Cross train on Nov 1.
Would they pay out for I tried to stop a madmen stabbing people? I could see lots of Travel Insurers (they are absolutely bastards) saying well that was your choice so it wasn't an accidental injury.
"we dont cover terrorist offences" "it wasnt a terrorist incident" "dunno, sounded like one"
Are you talking about the BBC coverage of Hamas....or the train attack?
The top 10% of UK income earners are incredibly steeply taxed.
Wealth is barely taxed.
So we simply penalise strivers and entrepreneurs to pay for elderly home-owners to take cruises.
It's remarkable the personal resentment I now feel when I see a group of laughing bronzed retirees sitting around enjoying themselves - and there really are rather a lot of them - whilst criticising the young for not working hard enough and complaining all the time.
Biting my tongue isn't snough.
Yep. My 86 year old father ticks into 30 years retired next May. That’s the same length of time he served in the police that still means he takes home £4500 month.
I'm part of a dining club, youngest there. Mostly retirees telling us of the cruise theyve just been on. Many of them, similar, retired in their late 50s.
Many of them will be ex public sector who retired under the rule of 85, which meant that when their combined age and length of service equalled 85 they could retire on full pension. Mrs. F had a colleague who retired at age 52 under that rule. I understand the rule is no longer in force. My father, having retired at 65 with a private company final salary pension and was on higher tax well before he died aged 93. So it’s not just the public sector whose staff had excellent pension schemes. Gordon Brown destroyed our pensions. No British politician in my lifetime has been as damaging as him.
Anybody who thinks Trump didn't want his supporters to march on the Capitol and try and reverse the election results should not be trusted with scissors...
C’mon, Trumpy was just advising all those sightseers queuing to see the Capitol to fight like hell for their place in the line, just got out of hand is all. Who hasn’t shit on the desk of one of their lawmakers having unexpectedly gained access to a seat of government?
Of course. But I'm quite OK with the idea that someone senior at the Beeb takes responsibility for a piece of sub par journalism.
That would be another thing that sets it apart from most media.
Agree with that. But I dont like the implication that US govt has lent on UK govt to lean on BBC.
I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I keep telling you.... Fickle, them voters.
Remember all those people before GE2024 saying things couldn't possibly be any worse with Labour?
Well, here we are.
We'd be in a much better place economically had we retained Rishi/Hunt, which of course is why we voted for them at the time.
We certainly wouldn't have spunked £40bn on public sector pay rises and the NHS that's for damn sure. What a complete disaster this bunch of idiots have been. £60bn in extra borrowing per year and literally nothing to show for it.
There's no doubt that with a Sunak Government we would be in a (slightly) better position than now. But it would still be a beleaguered, small majority Government, with no clear direction and no real solutions. It would be what it was - managed decline. And a confident Labour opposition would be looming, ready for the landslide next time.
This way is better. Labour has been utterly found out and will be out of power for a generation. Both the Tories and Reform are straining themselves to get ready on policy and show that they can get us out of this mess - I've never seen this much focus on policy in all the time I've been observing UK politics. I think this is what needed to happen.
Instead you’ll get the Greens to do a left wing government “properly”.
No, I don't think so. I am not going to tempt fate by suggesting a 'green ceiling', but I think a look at the actual manifesto in a GE will be quite sobering.
The top 10% of UK income earners are incredibly steeply taxed.
Wealth is barely taxed.
So we simply penalise strivers and entrepreneurs to pay for elderly home-owners to take cruises.
It's remarkable the personal resentment I now feel when I see a group of laughing bronzed retirees sitting around enjoying themselves - and there really are rather a lot of them - whilst criticising the young for not working hard enough and complaining all the time.
Biting my tongue isn't snough.
Yep. My 86 year old father ticks into 30 years retired next May. That’s the same length of time he served in the police that still means he takes home £4500 month.
I'm part of a dining club, youngest there. Mostly retirees telling us of the cruise theyve just been on. Many of them, similar, retired in their late 50s...
Trump claming victory, Tory Tim gone, is probably welcomed within the BBC. They get rid of the boss they don't want and can claim it was all a political hit job.
A hero who tried to fight off the Huntingdon train attacker has been refused a refund by Ryanair after his injuries left him unable to fly.
Stephen Crean, 61, had planned to fly to Austria on Wednesday to watch his beloved Nottingham Forest take on SK Sturm Graz in the Europa League.
But Mr Crean was left unable to travel after being stabbed six times in the attack on the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Doncaster to London Kings Cross train on Nov 1.
Would they pay out for I tried to stop a madmen stabbing people? I could see lots of Travel Insurers (they are absolutely bastards) saying well that was your choice so it wasn't an accidental injury.
"we dont cover terrorist offences" "it wasnt a terrorist incident" "dunno, sounded like one"
Are you talking about the BBC coverage of Hamas....or the train attack?
My poor attempt at the conversation with the travel insurance between Mr Crean and his insurer trying to get his money back for the ryan air flight he cant take.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
It was literally three sections of his speech spliced together and intercut with crowd footage so you couldn't see the joins, followed by footage of the 'subsequent' marching off to storm the Capitol that actually happened before the speech.
Every news report of every politicians speech is history is made my splicing together different sections of the speech intercut with other footage. It's like why Match of the Day doesn't simply rebroadcast the whole 90 minutes of a match. EDITED HIGHLIGHTS
If your match highlights had shown Manchester United winning a game by 3 2, when the final score was actually 4 3 to Arsenal, your boss might be wanting a word.
I had a chat in the playground this weekend with another middle-class parent which, after about 15 minutes of chat and the cost of living, finally gravitated onto politics.
She described herself as a floating voter. When I mentioned the economy, the upcoming budget and Rachel Reeves, she grimaced, said 'Rachel Thieves'. She said Reform are too far out there, and not for her, but she can't stand this govt, and she'd vote Conservative now. She rapidly followed up with, "Bring back Rishi."
Words I wasn’t expecting to hear.
I keep telling you.... Fickle, them voters.
Remember all those people before GE2024 saying things couldn't possibly be any worse with Labour?
Well, here we are.
We'd be in a much better place economically had we retained Rishi/Hunt, which of course is why we voted for them at the time.
We certainly wouldn't have spunked £40bn on public sector pay rises and the NHS that's for damn sure. What a complete disaster this bunch of idiots have been. £60bn in extra borrowing per year and literally nothing to show for it.
There's no doubt that with a Sunak Government we would be in a (slightly) better position than now. But it would still be a beleaguered, small majority Government, with no clear direction and no real solutions. It would be what it was - managed decline. And a confident Labour opposition would be looming, ready for the landslide next time.
This way is better. Labour has been utterly found out and will be out of power for a generation. Both the Tories and Reform are straining themselves to get ready on policy and show that they can get us out of this mess - I've never seen this much focus on policy in all the time I've been observing UK politics. I think this is what needed to happen.
Instead you’ll get the Greens to do a left wing government “properly”.
No, I don't think so. I am not going to tempt fate by suggesting a 'green ceiling', but I think a look at the actual manifesto in a GE will be quite sobering.
Maybe, but this is FPTP. The left might not have a choice.
Anyway, gone are the days of manifestos. It’s all done on social media vibes. If Polanski can capture a zeitgeist like Mandami then he will mop up a lot of votes like Corbyn. Especially anti Farage.
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
How far apart were the relevant lines? Far enough apart to make a televisual ellipsis legitimate? The sexing up here seems pretty minor compared with the infamous coining of that phrase.
Besides, given that Tim Davie was appointed in the Johnson years, it seems pretty likely that his successor will be more friendly to the current government than he was.
If the right regard this as a win, they may need to re-read the story of Pyrrhus of Epirus.
Just catching this news and the whole point is the Director General of the BBC should not be friendly with any government but report the news impartially
Time to end the licence fee tax on the public and move to a modern subscription model
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
He did though
The BBC clearly didn't trust their audience to come to that conclusion on their own without sexing up their report.
How far apart were the relevant lines? Far enough apart to make a televisual ellipsis legitimate? The sexing up here seems pretty minor compared with the infamous coining of that phrase.
Besides, given that Tim Davie was appointed in the Johnson years, it seems pretty likely that his successor will be more friendly to the current government than he was.
If the right regard this as a win, they may need to re-read the story of Pyrrhus of Epirus.
I'm sure Starmer & co wouldn't be so unscrupulous as to appoint someone who stood twice as a councillor for the Labour Party and who was deputy chairman of a CLP. Not that you're likely to get a fagpaper between the world views of such party apparatchicks nowadays.
A hero who tried to fight off the Huntingdon train attacker has been refused a refund by Ryanair after his injuries left him unable to fly.
Stephen Crean, 61, had planned to fly to Austria on Wednesday to watch his beloved Nottingham Forest take on SK Sturm Graz in the Europa League.
But Mr Crean was left unable to travel after being stabbed six times in the attack on the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Doncaster to London Kings Cross train on Nov 1.
the Board of Deputies of British Jews said: “Tim Davie’s and Deborah Turness’s resignations must be seen as the beginning, rather than the end, of a process of renewal. Deep cultural change will be necessary to once again restore trust in one of our nation’s most cherished institutions.”
"Tim Davie's and Deborah Turness's resignations must be seen as the beginning, rather than the end, of a process of renewal. Deep cultural change will be necessary to once again restore trust in one of our nation's most cherished institutions."
Our full statement below: pic.twitter.com/Gp5TOPjJiW
— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) November 9, 2025
So how many of the twentysomething Hamas supporters in the newsroom do we think are about to get fired?
@PronouncedAlva SCOOP: Tim Davie is about to announce his resignation as Director General of the BBC, according to a person familiar with the matter.
He probably had to go. Some of those editorial failings have been very bad.
The license fee needs to go. Not some sacrificial mug.
Replaced with what ?
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
How pathetic . Talk about an overreaction . Apologise for the dodgy edit and move on .
It’s not just one mistake. There is a massive bias issue being revealed in leaked info. Trans and Gaza are the top of the iceberg. You may not see it if it aligns with your world view.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpj0yloC7Gc
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or
“a substantial amount of extra tax”
I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/04/21/public_understanding_income_tax/
As a nation, we're not very clueful. This is a problem.
(As for what I'd do- it has to be taxing residential property, becuase that's where all the money ended up. I've seen 1% a year suggested as enough to properly fix the hole, and replace stamp duty and take social care out of council tax. Does that work? Let people roll it up if they are cash-poor, and let Ko-Ko, The Lord High Executioner of Titipu find a solution to valuation.)
This way is better. Labour has been utterly found out and will be out of power for a generation. Both the Tories and Reform are straining themselves to get ready on policy and show that they can get us out of this mess - I've never seen this much focus on policy in all the time I've been observing UK politics. I think this is what needed to happen.
·
50s
Tim Davie and chief exec of news, Deborah Turness are both leaving the BBC
BREAKING: BBC director general Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness quit over Trump documentary edit row
https://x.com/deborahturness/with_replies
By splicing it up they made it sound like Trump instructed his supporters to go and attack the Capitol building.
The merger of BBC News channels and BBC World has also been dire, alongside cuts to local news, as we saw last week when they had virtually no one in the UK during a major news story on a Saturday night.
They doctored footage of a speech with the intention to give the viewer to a false impression.
I want to thank Tim Davie for his service to public broadcasting over many years.
He has led the BBC through a period of significant change and helped the organisation to grip the challenges it has faced in recent years.
Reading through the day's missives, an enormous amount of, to be blunt, hatred but let's call it contempt for Rachel Reeves. I seem to recall she was considered the answer after Anneliese Dodds who was also subject to the usual vitriol was sacked by Starmer.
My take on Reeves? She looks overwhelmed and perhaps rightly so - the scale of what she faces would daunt most of us and let's be fair Hunt did the sum total of nothing in his time at No.11.
Back we go to what should/can she do - Budgets are political as much as economic exercises and Conservatives will be watching to see how effective Badenoch's response is in the House.
How do you reduce borrowing if you can't make meaningful cuts . We can have a pop at "public sector" pensions but it's chicken feed and we are committed to rises in defence, welfare and presumably no one wants further cuts in local Government etc and short of defaulting on our debts, the small matter of billions of debt interest payments per annum will need to be dealt with.
There's always those on benefits who we can demonise by calling them "lazy" or "scroungers" or whatever makes us feel better.
The short term aim is probably to slow the borrowing train - bringing it to a stop will take years. Tax rises, both direct and indirect, will have to happen and for all people whinge about it, until and unless Reeves does something radical such as taxing property and land it'll be income taxes, fuel duty, gaming duty etc where the "pain" will be felt. I'd like to know where she sees borrowing in 2028/29 compared to now.
It seems demographic changes are forcing economic and societal changes and the old models simply don't work any more. I also think, post Covid, atittudes to work have changed and it is no longer (for most) the be all and end all. We work to live, we don't live to work and while some on here will doubtless disagree, I think that's where more people are and if your lifestyle supports a lower income (and again lifestyle aspiration is moving on from tangible materialist symbols of "happiness" to something else) so be it.
[David Tennant W1A voice] It’s Sunday at the BBC, the day on which the corporation traditionally begins a new crisis
Home Office officials are proposing the migrants use the money to pay to live with a family or individual they know as part of Sir Keir Starmer’s drive to accelerate the closure of asylum hotels.
It is understood the £100 a week would be provided on top of their taxpayer-funded support for living costs of £49.18 a week for migrants in hotels.
The plan, to be trialled in 2026, could cut the cost of housing asylum seekers to a seventh of the total currently paid to accommodate them in hotels.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/09/asylum-seekers-to-be-offered-100-a-week-to-leave-hotels/
Who hasn’t shit on the desk of one of their lawmakers having unexpectedly gained access to a seat of government?
*metaphorical now, I know.
Igor Rogov, 30, has been associated with various opposition movements in the Russian city of Saransk, including Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation and Open Russia, linked to the exiled businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/09/russian-activist-held-in-poland-admits-he-worked-as-fsb-agent-court-papers-say
Then you can come to a conclusion and ask the audience to come to theirs. It makes me feel dirty to defend him, i hate defending sore losers, which it seemed to me to be his biggest crime. But in the great book of crimes, being a sore loser is up there with queue jumping. It shows how much of a repulsive character you are.
Besides, given that Tim Davie was appointed in the Johnson years, it seems pretty likely that his successor will be more friendly to the current government than he was.
If the right regard this as a win, they may need to re-read the story of Pyrrhus of Epirus.
Assuming you bought a property in the 80s or 90s and assuming you paid off the mortgage during the extended period of low interest rates, releasing the equity on your four or five bedroom family home is going to provide a nice pot of cash and yes you need somewhere to live but even so you'll still have a nice retirement pot to spend.
Seeing your family home increase in value many times must be reassuring - my parents' home went up 33 fold in as many years from 1967 to 2000 and for larger suburban properties it must be similar today.
The Beeb still provides good and unbiased journalism, and a something of a counterbalance to both reporting and streaming which is now controlled largely by US billionaires.
It still has a role, and I say it should be funded from taxation.
Misrepresenting the Mad King is not really one of them
The BBC arent alone in putting these out of order, many media organisations did so. It was too good an opportunity to miss.
But I'm quite OK with the idea that someone senior at the Beeb takes responsibility for a piece of sub par journalism.
That would be another thing that sets it apart from most media.
My basic needs are met, my main issue is social contact for which I need beer money.
White House claims victory over the BBC.
https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1987591968315015522?s=20
"Tim Davie's and Deborah Turness's resignations must be seen as the beginning, rather than the end, of a process of renewal. Deep cultural change will be necessary to once again restore trust in one of our nation's most cherished institutions."
Our full statement below: pic.twitter.com/Gp5TOPjJiW
— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) November 9, 2025
Well, I can given the culprits, though TUD does usually maintain a fairly convincing veneer of sanity.
"it wasnt a terrorist incident"
"dunno, sounded like one"
Anyway, gone are the days of manifestos. It’s all done on social media vibes. If Polanski can capture a zeitgeist like Mandami then he will mop up a lot of votes like Corbyn. Especially anti Farage.
Time to end the licence fee tax on the public and move to a modern subscription model
Not that you're likely to get a fagpaper between the world views of such party apparatchicks nowadays.