And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
The right to buy, whether right or wrong, was not the problem. Failure to build in line with needs is the problem. Failure of regulation not privatisation, whether right or wrong, has led to Thames. Neither Thatcher nor Blair created a capitalist society. Neither derogated from our fundamentally social democrat version of capitalist society.
But Mrs T didn't let the councils recycle the income from house sales into more houses.
Exactly. The power to build not the right to buy was the problem.
I want to see what a million quid’s worth of renovations look like.
Does make sense if she'd bought a half ruin, or a house plus ruined barn, or similar, and ended up with something 2-3x the space. And any fule should - but may well not in practice - kno that the rateable value goes up if you improve - even if it is just an attic bedroom. No biggie on the existing CT bands which favour the top end - but the budget is a nasty shock if you've assumed they'll never be rationalised/modernised.
And/Or ended up having to buy half from a divorcing spouse, but doesn't want to mention that for whatever reason.
Either way, she could end up suddenly being more committed.
Fraser has a new piece on covid, lockdown, Ferguson models and Sweden:
Sweden’s Covid response was in the hands not of politicians but a public health agency run by Anders Tegnell, a veteran epidemiologist who had worked in the field with Ebola. He’d been around the circuit and regarded Ferguson as a loose cannon with a history of getting things badly wrong. Tegnell asked his old boss Johan Giesecke, 70, to come out of retirement to help. Both had been scarred by the swine flu panic where a Sweden-wide vaccination campaign ended up in side-effects, scandal and recrimination. The debacle profoundly shaped Sweden’s Covid policy.
Giesecke could recall Ferguson’s previous work from the top of his head. Like foot-and-mouth disease. ‘They thought 50,000 would die. How many did? 177’. And then Ferguson’s work with bird flu: Ferguson warned that 200m could die. It ended up being 455. Four years after that it was swine flu and the prognosis was 65,000 British deaths. Actual? 474. In his book The Herd, the writer Johan Anderberg says “Giesecke regarded Ferguson’s career as one long string of disastrous miscalculations - with fateful consequences”.
"Swedes can at least say they’re not guilty of the self-congratulation that they diagnose in Brits (where it was, yet again, knighthoods all round)."
Was there any reflections in the covid inquiry report about what others got right, or was it just relentless navel gazing?
There's a couple of paragraphs about Sweden in first volume. Saying is myth that Sweden did nothing (has anyone serious claimed that???) and their R number didn't fall as fast in first wave.
So, unless stuff is in volume 2, then I think 'no' is the answer.
I remain appalled at this vast waste of public money.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
Fraser has a new piece on covid, lockdown, Ferguson models and Sweden:
Sweden’s Covid response was in the hands not of politicians but a public health agency run by Anders Tegnell, a veteran epidemiologist who had worked in the field with Ebola. He’d been around the circuit and regarded Ferguson as a loose cannon with a history of getting things badly wrong. Tegnell asked his old boss Johan Giesecke, 70, to come out of retirement to help. Both had been scarred by the swine flu panic where a Sweden-wide vaccination campaign ended up in side-effects, scandal and recrimination. The debacle profoundly shaped Sweden’s Covid policy.
Giesecke could recall Ferguson’s previous work from the top of his head. Like foot-and-mouth disease. ‘They thought 50,000 would die. How many did? 177’. And then Ferguson’s work with bird flu: Ferguson warned that 200m could die. It ended up being 455. Four years after that it was swine flu and the prognosis was 65,000 British deaths. Actual? 474. In his book The Herd, the writer Johan Anderberg says “Giesecke regarded Ferguson’s career as one long string of disastrous miscalculations - with fateful consequences”.
"Swedes can at least say they’re not guilty of the self-congratulation that they diagnose in Brits (where it was, yet again, knighthoods all round)."
Was there any reflections in the covid inquiry report about what others got right, or was it just relentless navel gazing?
There's a couple of paragraphs about Sweden in first volume. Saying is myth that Sweden did nothing (has anyone serious claimed that???) and their R number didn't fall as fast in first wave.
So, unless stuff is in volume 2, then I think 'no' is the answer.
I remain appalled at this vast waste of public money.
Appalled but utterly unsurprised.
Hopefully this is one report where the usual lessons are learned.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
The right to buy, whether right or wrong, was not the problem. Failure to build in line with needs is the problem. Failure of regulation not privatisation, whether right or wrong, has led to Thames. Neither Thatcher nor Blair created a capitalist society. Neither derogated from our fundamentally social democrat version of capitalist society.
But Mrs T didn't let the councils recycle the income from house sales into more houses.
Those houses still exist though.
Planning restrictions introduced in the 1940s are why we do not have sufficient houses. And why we have NEVER post war built homes at the rate we did pre war.
Actually, the former council houses [edit] don't necessarily still exist. Quite a few were sold off cheap in places where they were cheap because the places were going downhill (e.g. colliery villages). Lots ended up derelict or were demolished. And the redevelopment of many areas involved the compulsory purchase of many houses and flats - often a mosaic of council homes and privately bought ones. I'm not sure of the stats, but it would not have been a trivial number, and on the whole the replacements were notoriously likely to be more upmarket and less dense.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
She has done well but is she being unfairly targeted ?
We seem to be getting drowned in moaning from the rich - and someone with a £2.5m house and a £125 salary is rich - and moaning from those getting benefits (I wont describe them as the poor as many of them aren't).
Ultimately though this country is and has been for decades living beyond its means and that needs to stop.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
Haven't heard credit cards blamed for a long time - not since ITV advertising was also blamed in the same breath!
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
The right to buy, whether right or wrong, was not the problem. Failure to build in line with needs is the problem. Failure of regulation not privatisation, whether right or wrong, has led to Thames. Neither Thatcher nor Blair created a capitalist society. Neither derogated from our fundamentally social democrat version of capitalist society.
But Mrs T didn't let the councils recycle the income from house sales into more houses.
Exactly. The power to build not the right to buy was the problem.
Local councils being obliged to sell off assets for well below the market value wasn't so great either.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
Haven't heard credit cards blamed for a long time - not since ITV advertising was also blamed in the same breath!
I think it’s a real issue. People have forgotten or never learned how to save for things. Want it? Get it on credit.
And you know what? It’s mostly fine, for most people. But at a national level we are living beyond our means. Time for a reality check. Not coming Tuesday.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
And the Falklands would actually be Argentina.
Wrong way round. The Channel Islands would be Argentinian, surely.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
This is what is always said but it is not really true. For the vast majority troubled by IHT their major asset is their house on which they will have a substantial gain from the time that they bought it. And they have paid no tax on that gain at all. Unless they have bought an annuity the next largest asset is likely to be pension funds. On which they have not only not paid tax but had tax relief. If they own a business then there will be unrealised (and untaxed) capital gains on heritable assets and goodwill. The taxed income people complain about is likely to be a relatively modest contributor to the estate because it is bloody difficult to have meaningful savings out of taxed income in this country, thus maintaining the financial dominance of our ruling class.
If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.
Better to actually tax them at source: principal private property should face capital gains with rollover relief.
Pensions are different: it’s an incentive to save so makes no sense to tax during the owner’s lifetime. But they should be treated as any other financial asset on death (perhaps with an exemption for a spouse or partner as often you have a single pension supporting a couple)
Taxing the gains on a property is just a bad idea we already have stamp duty which is a massive disincentive that stops people moving.
Personally I would be replacing all property based taxes with a single higher annual charge which would provide adequate incentives for people to downsize as they get older.
Stamp duty is a bad tax which should be replaced by an annual property charge
But it makes no sense for a huge asset to be capital gains tax free as that distorts investment incentives (encourages over investment in non productive assets)
But you need rollover relief because otherwise you constrain the ability to move houses as required
There is no philosophical reason why someone downsizing should get a massive capital gains tax free windfall
While I 90% agree, property is a productive asset, in that it generates utility: i.e. Somewhere to live.
I’m only at 50% agreement because of the disincentive a CGT on main residence creates, even with rollover: it ensures nobody will ever downsize unless they absolutely have to.
That’s because people are irrational. Maintaining too large a property in order to defer taxes is usually a flawed investment strategy. But with a annual property tax that would also create pressure to downsize if appropriate
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
She has done well but is she being unfairly targeted ?
We seem to be getting drowned in moaning from the rich - and someone with a £2.5m house and a £125 salary is rich - and moaning from those getting benefits (I wont describe them as the poor as many of them aren't).
Ultimately though this country is and has been for decades living beyond its means and that needs to stop.
I love the emotional cost in the renovations. Is that Reeves fault too?
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
Haven't heard credit cards blamed for a long time - not since ITV advertising was also blamed in the same breath!
I think it’s a real issue. People have forgotten or never learned how to save for things. Want it? Get it on credit.
And you know what? It’s mostly fine, for most people. But at a national level we are living beyond our means. Time for a reality check. Not coming Tuesday.
I seriously wonder if those sob stories of the wealthy are simply people who have extended themselves too far with current spending - never mind debt as you note - as to be vulnerable to any setback (and sometimes I'm sure they don't even let us know about the setbacks). And it's a total disaster if something like the violin lessons have to go because everything else is signed up or committed - which I can well understand from the child's p of v.
As for national economies, I remember discussing with DavidL how the balance of payments was a major element of the news on TV - visible and invisible exports, the need for better figures ... and how it has disappeared in recent decades.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
And the Falklands would actually be Argentina.
And Thames water have cleaned up the River Thames to the point it is now the cleanest river going through any major global city in the world. This clean rivers and seas thing is right across the UK, to a lesser extent in Wales and Scotland. We have seen phenomenal improvements in water quality and pollution has reduced and all kinds of mammals, fish and invertebrate life are thriving in rivers that at one time werent far off being declared biologically dead.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
This comes up frequently. The past idea was 'my house is my pension' but when it gets to cashing in the 'pension' they suddenly find a reason not to, and then ask for financial help. Part of the 'nation of home owners' ideology. This is part of the triumvirate of 'wanting to pass onto the next generation' and 'I can't afford my care home fees'.
As a nation we lack basic numeracy and financial literacy.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
The right to buy, whether right or wrong, was not the problem. Failure to build in line with needs is the problem. Failure of regulation not privatisation, whether right or wrong, has led to Thames. Neither Thatcher nor Blair created a capitalist society. Neither derogated from our fundamentally social democrat version of capitalist society.
But Mrs T didn't let the councils recycle the income from house sales into more houses.
Those houses still exist though.
Planning restrictions introduced in the 1940s are why we do not have sufficient houses. And why we have NEVER post war built homes at the rate we did pre war.
Just remembered - I've seen council houses (well, low rise flats) that had a very odd plan till I realised they were knocked together from two now too small houses. Same thing with some of the farm cottages around here. An interesting, and perhaps unexpected, statistical factor to consider!
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
This comes up frequently. The past idea was 'my house is my pension' but when it gets to cashing in the 'pension' they suddenly find a reason not to, and then ask for financial help. Part of the 'nation of home owners' ideology. This is part of the triumvirate of 'wanting to pass onto the next generation' and 'I can't afford my care home fees'.
As a nation we lack basic numeracy and financial literacy.
TBF that doesn't really explain why he had the mortgage for so long. But I don't disagree on the rather strange notion of the house being one's pension (barring a very drastic downsize).
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
I wouldn't trust Modi further than I could throw the PB massiv.
If only there was an enormous political and economic cabal of nations on our doorstep that we could closely align to.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
I wouldn't trust Modi further than I could throw the PB massiv.
If only there was an enormous political and economic cabal of nations on our doorstep that we could closely align to.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
Is India not a strategic challenge?
As I have mentioned in the previous post to yours wouldn't a trading and security bloc on our doorstep be an awesome asset?
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
Is India not a strategic challenge?
For the UK I think that the list of potential big bad enemies is probably Russia mainly, and then, a very long way away, the US. China I guess comes next, then whatever the EU has to offer, and really bottom of the threats is India. They're last because of all the cultural ties.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
If things had failed to change in 1979, we would now be Argentina.
Three World Cups?
Sure, but life here would be very messi.
Especially with Argentine politicians lion all the time about inflation.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
Really? What about her 15 years of schooling her medical bills and what about those who empty her bins nurse her kids and herself when she's sick and aren't in a job that means they can afford a £2.5 million house and to pay £20.000 into their pension every year?
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
So it turns out that great swathes of X (Twitter) MAGA types actually hail from Africa, Asia, and so on. And a decent chunk of Scottish Nationalists too.
Russian psyops remain formidable.
Is this the VPN thing? Almost every government/BBC/political account is based overseas on that basis.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
Is India not a strategic challenge?
As I have mentioned in the previous post to yours wouldn't a trading and security bloc on our doorstep be an awesome asset?
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
I wouldn't trust Modi further than I could throw the PB massiv.
If only there was an enormous political and economic cabal of nations on our doorstep that we could closely align to.
Over which Viktor Orban has a veto.
Orban's bread is buttered by two sides. The bread comes from the EU though.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
There will be plenty of unmarried or divorced residents of those terraced or detached homes in Edinburgh too who would have had to pay IHT pre 2015
Ah - you've changed it. But lots of unmarried or divorced people don't have children.
In fact your ENTIRE argument about £1m allowance is only relevant to Tory and C of E approved nuclear families. It would be more convincing if it were more fairly handled.
Plenty of Labour voting married couples with children with million pound houses in Hampstead, Cambridge, Finchley, Kensington etc and LD voting married couples with children in LD held seats in Surrey.
Divorced people with step children can use the Residence Nil Rate Band too as can unmarried people with adopted children
My mother was divorced. She passed away a few years back, having lived near Hampstead. My sister and I had a big inheritance tax bill. We were fine with that.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
This comes up frequently. The past idea was 'my house is my pension' but when it gets to cashing in the 'pension' they suddenly find a reason not to, and then ask for financial help. Part of the 'nation of home owners' ideology. This is part of the triumvirate of 'wanting to pass onto the next generation' and 'I can't afford my care home fees'.
As a nation we lack basic numeracy and financial literacy.
TBF that doesn't really explain why he had the mortgage for so long. But I don't disagree on the rather strange notion of the house being one's pension (barring a very drastic downsize).
I don't know this person's individual circumstances of course but have come across a few people in similar situations who have regularly increased their borrowing to release equity which they then use to fund a lifestyle beyond their income. The lenders have some responsibility here too ofc.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
There has been virtually no interest in Farage's girlfriend's house in Frinton. Certainly none on how she was in a position to afford it.
As to Gill being a nobody. I suspect you have a point. There should however be media questions, and detailed ones at that, asking Farage about the content of his statements in the European Parliament and elsewhere and how he reached the conclusions he did, bearing in mind the rest of us thought Putin to be an expansionist with serious human rights questions to answer both at home and abroad at the time Farage was singing his praises.
I have not accused Mr Farage of any wrongdoing but I would like him to explain the incredible, presumably coincidental, similarities between his speeches and Gill's speeches.
I am of the opinion that our next Prime Minister having unexplained connections with an enemy of our state is far more vexing than Starmer tripping over at the G20.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
Really? What about her 15 years of schooling her medical bills and what about those who empty her bins nurse her kids and herself when she's sick and aren't in a job that means they can afford a £2.5 million house and to pay £20.000 into their pension every year?
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
She is precisely the upwardly mobile striver which Britain now punitively taxes. We need more people like her, despite the silliness of noting the emotional strain of her redecoration.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
You mean the miserable bastard demographic?
Millions of us.
Sad if true.
Humanity doesn’t survive if people don’t have children anymore.
As a society we seem happy stuffing the mouths of old people with gold, but begrudge any pennies distributed toward mothers and families.
I have much sympathy with this but I'm astonished the government is planning to raise taxes solely to give it to those with large families on universal credit.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
Really? What about her 15 years of schooling her medical bills and what about those who empty her bins nurse her kids and herself when she's sick and aren't in a job that means they can afford a £2.5 million house and to pay £20.000 into their pension every year?
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
She is precisely the upwardly mobile striver which Britain now punitively taxes. We need more people like her, despite the silliness of noting the emotional strain of her redecoration.
I've got to the final stage interview of a job (strictly speaking in the public sector) which pays less than I currently earn because I've basically given up and it's just not worth it anymore; I'd rather spend more time with my family.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
Is India not a strategic challenge?
In 20 years it could be
Then maybe we should be building a tighter relationship with China now in time for it to matter.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
You mean the miserable bastard demographic?
Millions of us.
Sad if true.
Humanity doesn’t survive if people don’t have children anymore.
As a society we seem happy stuffing the mouths of old people with gold, but begrudge any pennies distributed toward mothers and families.
I have much sympathy with this but I'm astonished the government is planning to raise taxes solely to give it to those with large families on universal credit.
It's entirely a sop to the Labour Left.
I don’t think it is. It’s a the single best thing the government can do to ameliorate child poverty, which has been growing steeply (even as ever higher numbers of pensioners weigh up how many cruises to take this year).
The sop to the Labour left was the pathetic climb down on first winter fuel payments and then, criminally, runaway PIP costs.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
You mean the miserable bastard demographic?
Millions of us.
Sad if true.
Humanity doesn’t survive if people don’t have children anymore.
As a society we seem happy stuffing the mouths of old people with gold, but begrudge any pennies distributed toward mothers and families.
I have much sympathy with this but I'm astonished the government is planning to raise taxes solely to give it to those with large families on universal credit.
It's entirely a sop to the Labour Left.
What do you think the motivation is of the Labour left (MPs) who want this sop?
Other Labour left sops include the employment law “reform” - which looks as if it will reduce employment - the landlord legislation - which looks as if it will discourage property maintenance - and the class driven attacks on private schools and farmers.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
Really? What about her 15 years of schooling her medical bills and what about those who empty her bins nurse her kids and herself when she's sick and aren't in a job that means they can afford a £2.5 million house and to pay £20.000 into their pension every year?
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
She is precisely the upwardly mobile striver which Britain now punitively taxes. We need more people like her, despite the silliness of noting the emotional strain of her redecoration.
I've got to the final stage interview of a job (strictly speaking in the public sector) which pays less than I currently earn because I've basically given up and it's just not worth it anymore; I'd rather spend more time with my family.
I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.
But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.
Yes, I think so too, and that would already be far more than they should accept in a just world.
But since Russia seems absolutely set on its buffer state, why not create one. It must not be all of Ukraine. But a part of Ukraine running along the Russian border, with a capital and a President, and elections of a sort, seems viable to me. It would mean that according to the maps at least, Russia wouldn't have 'gained' territory, just created Eastern Ukraine.
In exchange for the giving up of land into Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine would get assent to join NATO - how could this be refused if Russia had its buffer state?
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
There has been virtually no interest in Farage's girlfriend's house in Frinton. Certainly none on how she was in a position to afford it.
As to Gill being a nobody. I suspect you have a point. There should however be media questions, and detailed ones at that, asking Farage about the content of his statements in the European Parliament and elsewhere and how he reached the conclusions he did, bearing in mind the rest of us thought Putin to be an expansionist with serious human rights questions to answer both at home and abroad at the time Farage was singing his praises.
I have not accused Mr Farage of any wrongdoing but I would like him to explain the incredible, presumably coincidental, similarities between his speeches and Gill's speeches.
I am of the opinion that our next Prime Minister having unexplained connections with an enemy of our state is far more vexing than Starmer tripping over at the G20.
There has been quite a lot of speculation over Farage's house in Frinton, and if there was something in it, or turns out to be in the future, no doubt it will be big news
As for anti EU politicians making speeches blaming the EU for Russian aggression towards Ukraine, you must have noticed that UKIP MEPs, and Eurosceptics in general, blame(d) the EU for almost everything. They didn't have to be paid to say so. That's why it didn't really feel like big news for Gill to be making the speeches and comments he did back then
Fraser has a new piece on covid, lockdown, Ferguson models and Sweden:
Sweden’s Covid response was in the hands not of politicians but a public health agency run by Anders Tegnell, a veteran epidemiologist who had worked in the field with Ebola. He’d been around the circuit and regarded Ferguson as a loose cannon with a history of getting things badly wrong. Tegnell asked his old boss Johan Giesecke, 70, to come out of retirement to help. Both had been scarred by the swine flu panic where a Sweden-wide vaccination campaign ended up in side-effects, scandal and recrimination. The debacle profoundly shaped Sweden’s Covid policy.
Giesecke could recall Ferguson’s previous work from the top of his head. Like foot-and-mouth disease. ‘They thought 50,000 would die. How many did? 177’. And then Ferguson’s work with bird flu: Ferguson warned that 200m could die. It ended up being 455. Four years after that it was swine flu and the prognosis was 65,000 British deaths. Actual? 474. In his book The Herd, the writer Johan Anderberg says “Giesecke regarded Ferguson’s career as one long string of disastrous miscalculations - with fateful consequences”.
"Swedes can at least say they’re not guilty of the self-congratulation that they diagnose in Brits (where it was, yet again, knighthoods all round)."
Was there any reflections in the covid inquiry report about what others got right, or was it just relentless navel gazing?
The Inquiry has been focused on what happened in the UK, because that’s what Boris Johnson set it up to do. There are several points in it where it talks about evens and actions in other countries, but it’s not doing a formal analysis of what others got right/wrong.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Here's another sob story from the i this week:
I'm 74 and only have the state pension - I can't afford to fix my leaking gutter. He pays £204 a month for his mortgage, as he says he is “stuck” on a 6.2 per cent interest rate due to his financial circumstances.
He bought his house in 1982, why hasn't he paid off his small mortgage and why didn't he save for his own pension ?
This comes up frequently. The past idea was 'my house is my pension' but when it gets to cashing in the 'pension' they suddenly find a reason not to, and then ask for financial help. Part of the 'nation of home owners' ideology. This is part of the triumvirate of 'wanting to pass onto the next generation' and 'I can't afford my care home fees'.
As a nation we lack basic numeracy and financial literacy.
To encourage down-sizing there should only be stamp duty on the difference between the price of the property sold and the one purchased, when both sale and purchase are near similtaneous.
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
Is India not a strategic challenge?
For the UK I think that the list of potential big bad enemies is probably Russia mainly, and then, a very long way away, the US. China I guess comes next, then whatever the EU has to offer, and really bottom of the threats is India. They're last because of all the cultural ties.
Enemies are countries that don’t play cricket. Therefore, India are not an enemy. Russia, the USA and France are enemies.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
You mean the miserable bastard demographic?
Millions of us.
Sad if true.
Humanity doesn’t survive if people don’t have children anymore.
As a society we seem happy stuffing the mouths of old people with gold, but begrudge any pennies distributed toward mothers and families.
I have much sympathy with this but I'm astonished the government is planning to raise taxes solely to give it to those with large families on universal credit.
It's entirely a sop to the Labour Left.
I don’t think it is. It’s a the single best thing the government can do to ameliorate child poverty, which has been growing steeply (even as ever higher numbers of pensioners weigh up how many cruises to take this year).
The sop to the Labour left was the pathetic climb down on first winter fuel payments and then, criminally, runaway PIP costs.
I think increasing welfare spending by £4bn a year to pay even more to families with more than 2 children on universal credit is mad. And nor do I think it "lifts (people) out of poverty"; that is simply rhetoric based on moving a number of claimants above or below some arbitrary line on a spreadsheet.
The only serious way out of poverty is real welfare reform, and that means getting far more people in work.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
Really? What about her 15 years of schooling her medical bills and what about those who empty her bins nurse her kids and herself when she's sick and aren't in a job that means they can afford a £2.5 million house and to pay £20.000 into their pension every year?
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
She is precisely the upwardly mobile striver which Britain now punitively taxes. We need more people like her, despite the silliness of noting the emotional strain of her redecoration.
Her whole cri de coeur sounded like the emotional strain of her redecoration. If it wasn't in the Telegraph I'd say it was a spoof. Harry Enfield like
The UK has fewer geopolitical options than it did before 2016, when it could briefly hope to act as a Chinese bridge into Europe alongside its existing role as a US one.
If one believes in liberal democracy, one must advance the case vocally, and hew close to likeminded partners in Europe and Canada especially.
It was not obvious that the UK could rely on the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s either.
China is not our friend
They are not but Putin/Trump pose the far more immediate threat to western Europe
Russia is an immediate and tactical threat. China is a strategic challenge. We should be working to build tighter relationships with India
Is India not a strategic challenge?
For the UK I think that the list of potential big bad enemies is probably Russia mainly, and then, a very long way away, the US. China I guess comes next, then whatever the EU has to offer, and really bottom of the threats is India. They're last because of all the cultural ties.
Enemies are countries that don’t play cricket. Therefore, India are not an enemy. Russia, the USA and France are enemies.
The relatively recent England-Pakistan series (cricket) rather resurrected my hopes for Pakistan (as a nation).
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
You mean the miserable bastard demographic?
Millions of us.
Sad if true.
Humanity doesn’t survive if people don’t have children anymore.
As a society we seem happy stuffing the mouths of old people with gold, but begrudge any pennies distributed toward mothers and families.
I have much sympathy with this but I'm astonished the government is planning to raise taxes solely to give it to those with large families on universal credit.
It's entirely a sop to the Labour Left.
What do you think the motivation is of the Labour left (MPs) who want this sop?
Poverty porn. Like Gaza, it's an indulgence of (largely) middle-class progressives so they can feel good about themselves at dinner parties.
Traditional Labour MPs who actually worked for a living would be appalled.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
There has been virtually no interest in Farage's girlfriend's house in Frinton. Certainly none on how she was in a position to afford it.
As to Gill being a nobody. I suspect you have a point. There should however be media questions, and detailed ones at that, asking Farage about the content of his statements in the European Parliament and elsewhere and how he reached the conclusions he did, bearing in mind the rest of us thought Putin to be an expansionist with serious human rights questions to answer both at home and abroad at the time Farage was singing his praises.
I have not accused Mr Farage of any wrongdoing but I would like him to explain the incredible, presumably coincidental, similarities between his speeches and Gill's speeches.
I am of the opinion that our next Prime Minister having unexplained connections with an enemy of our state is far more vexing than Starmer tripping over at the G20.
There has been quite a lot of speculation over Farage's house in Frinton, and if there was something in it, or turns out to be in the future, no doubt it will be big news
As for anti EU politicians making speeches blaming the EU for Russian aggression towards Ukraine, you must have noticed that UKIP MEPs, and Eurosceptics in general, blame(d) the EU for almost everything. They didn't have to be paid to say so. That's why it didn't really feel like big news for Gill to be making the speeches and comments he did back then
We know Russia has been funding populist right wing parties across Europe. Marine Le Pen was bankrolled by Russian bank loans. The connections between Russia and AfD are dense and manifold.
We also saw with our own eyes Farage present on Russia Today, spend a lot of time with various Russian officials, and involve himself with characters like Julian Assange.
It would be incredibly surprising, tbh, if UKIP and Brexit Parties (dunno about Reform) were NOT funded in part by Russian interests, even if nobody has found a “smoking gun.”
An astonishing amount of global ne’erdowells, including Epstein and Trump, seem to have Russian connections.
It’s kind of weird. I don’t know anybody with “Russian connections”, but perhaps I just don’t mix in the right circles.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
There has been virtually no interest in Farage's girlfriend's house in Frinton. Certainly none on how she was in a position to afford it.
As to Gill being a nobody. I suspect you have a point. There should however be media questions, and detailed ones at that, asking Farage about the content of his statements in the European Parliament and elsewhere and how he reached the conclusions he did, bearing in mind the rest of us thought Putin to be an expansionist with serious human rights questions to answer both at home and abroad at the time Farage was singing his praises.
I have not accused Mr Farage of any wrongdoing but I would like him to explain the incredible, presumably coincidental, similarities between his speeches and Gill's speeches.
I am of the opinion that our next Prime Minister having unexplained connections with an enemy of our state is far more vexing than Starmer tripping over at the G20.
There has been quite a lot of speculation over Farage's house in Frinton, and if there was something in it, or turns out to be in the future, no doubt it will be big news
As for anti EU politicians making speeches blaming the EU for Russian aggression towards Ukraine, you must have noticed that UKIP MEPs, and Eurosceptics in general, blame(d) the EU for almost everything. They didn't have to be paid to say so. That's why it didn't really feel like big news for Gill to be making the speeches and comments he did back then
We know Russia has been funding populist right wing parties across Europe. Marine Le Pen was bankrolled by Russian bank loans. The connections between Russia and AfD are dense and manifold.
We also saw with our own eyes Farage present on Russia Today, spend a lot of time with various Russian officials, and involve himself with characters like Julian Assange.
It would be incredibly surprising, tbh, if UKIP and Brexit Parties (dunno about Reform) were NOT funded in part by Russian interests, even if nobody has found a “smoking gun.”
An astonishing amount of global ne’erdowells, including Epstein and Trump, seem to have Russian connections.
It’s kind of weird. I don’t know anybody with “Russian connections”, but perhaps I just don’t mix in the right circles.
Abramovich owned property all over the place not to mention his wifes galleries in Mayfair.
Arguments about Russian influence often read like a centrist version of Corbynite arguments about Israeli influence.
I don’t know what the Corbynite claims are, but Israel makes it its business to run an aggressive lobbying and influence operation across the entire West.
And it’s incredibly effective.
Too bad the Israeli state itself has fallen into clutches of the extreme right wing.
Building a closer relationship with India is the thinking beyond the Chagos giveaway.
Like most of our foreign policy attempts, a ludicrous misplaced hope. India, like China, and frankly like the EU, will take what a weak UK is prepared to give and get very hostile if anything is asked for in return. We would have better and more constructive relationships with these powers we had boundaries and mutual respect. As it is we are still disliked but also despised.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
Really? What about her 15 years of schooling her medical bills and what about those who empty her bins nurse her kids and herself when she's sick and aren't in a job that means they can afford a £2.5 million house and to pay £20.000 into their pension every year?
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
She is precisely the upwardly mobile striver which Britain now punitively taxes. We need more people like her, despite the silliness of noting the emotional strain of her redecoration.
I've got to the final stage interview of a job (strictly speaking in the public sector) which pays less than I currently earn because I've basically given up and it's just not worth it anymore; I'd rather spend more time with my family.
So, this is a real thing.
Interesting, Casino.
My daughter did exactly that about a year ago. She seems happy with the decision.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
You said you hoped a future PM would be "a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America." All well and good, but the criticism of many Remainers, and the Remain cabal of politicians in particular, was that they were putting the future prosperity of some third party state ahead of that of the UK
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
There has been virtually no interest in Farage's girlfriend's house in Frinton. Certainly none on how she was in a position to afford it.
As to Gill being a nobody. I suspect you have a point. There should however be media questions, and detailed ones at that, asking Farage about the content of his statements in the European Parliament and elsewhere and how he reached the conclusions he did, bearing in mind the rest of us thought Putin to be an expansionist with serious human rights questions to answer both at home and abroad at the time Farage was singing his praises.
I have not accused Mr Farage of any wrongdoing but I would like him to explain the incredible, presumably coincidental, similarities between his speeches and Gill's speeches.
I am of the opinion that our next Prime Minister having unexplained connections with an enemy of our state is far more vexing than Starmer tripping over at the G20.
There has been quite a lot of speculation over Farage's house in Frinton, and if there was something in it, or turns out to be in the future, no doubt it will be big news
As for anti EU politicians making speeches blaming the EU for Russian aggression towards Ukraine, you must have noticed that UKIP MEPs, and Eurosceptics in general, blame(d) the EU for almost everything. They didn't have to be paid to say so. That's why it didn't really feel like big news for Gill to be making the speeches and comments he did back then
We know Russia has been funding populist right wing parties across Europe. Marine Le Pen was bankrolled by Russian bank loans. The connections between Russia and AfD are dense and manifold.
We also saw with our own eyes Farage present on Russia Today, spend a lot of time with various Russian officials, and involve himself with characters like Julian Assange.
It would be incredibly surprising, tbh, if UKIP and Brexit Parties (dunno about Reform) were NOT funded in part by Russian interests, even if nobody has found a “smoking gun.”
An astonishing amount of global ne’erdowells, including Epstein and Trump, seem to have Russian connections.
It’s kind of weird. I don’t know anybody with “Russian connections”, but perhaps I just don’t mix in the right circles.
Important to look at Farage's close friend and funder Aaron Banks.
Now Russian funding and connections do not mean that a person is nessecarily going to act in Russia's interests. Johnson strongly backed Ukraine in 2022 despite everything that Russia did for him over the years. Perhaps that says more about how Johnson betrays all his friends, but noteworthy nonetheless.
It would be good if Farage did come clean about his Russian connections. Clearly they did try to influence him.
Building a closer relationship with India is the thinking beyond the Chagos giveaway.
Like most of our foreign policy attempts, a ludicrous misplaced hope. India, like China, and frankly like the EU, will take what a weak UK is prepared to give and get very hostile if anything is asked for in return. We would have better and more constructive relationships with these powers we had boundaries and mutual respect. As it is we are still disliked but also despised.
British respect for “the rules” is its superpower. Also it’s Achilles heel.
Nobody else plays by the rules as the British understand them. This was true within the EU, when Britain loved to gold plate regulations from Brussels unto uncompetitiveness, and it’s true geopolitically when movement on Chagos inspires more contempt than respect, sadly.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
You said you hoped a future PM would be "a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America." All well and good, but the criticism of many Remainers, and the Remain cabal of politicians in particular, was that they were putting the future prosperity of some third party state ahead of that of the UK
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
Building a closer relationship with India is the thinking beyond the Chagos giveaway.
Like most of our foreign policy attempts, a ludicrous misplaced hope. India, like China, and frankly like the EU, will take what a weak UK is prepared to give and get very hostile if anything is asked for in return. We would have better and more constructive relationships with these powers we had boundaries and mutual respect. As it is we are still disliked but also despised.
British respect for “the rules” is its superpower. Also it’s Achilles heel.
Nobody else plays by the rules as the British understand them. This was true within the EU, when Britain loved to gold plate regulations from Brussels unto uncompetitiveness, and it’s true geopolitically when movement on Chagos inspires more contempt than respect, sadly.
You do, don't you? So the nobody camp reduced by one. Me too, so reduced by two.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
He is saying that our politicians should have to tell us if they are acting in the interests of any other foreign power, and that includes the EU. For example, signing a 'deal' that does absolutely shit all for the UK, except get the EU to stop using SPS checks to block UK imports - something that was against WTM rules and a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement anyway, and in return we renew their fishing rights over our waters for another 12 years. Or signing tens of millions over to France to 'smash the gangs', whereupon they let over more people than they did before the deal was signed.
Perhaps before we question where Farage's loyalties lie, we should ask serious questions about where Starmer's loyalties lie.
She’s done v well to get where she is from a council house. She’s right to feel unfairly targeted.
Really? What about her 15 years of schooling her medical bills and what about those who empty her bins nurse her kids and herself when she's sick and aren't in a job that means they can afford a £2.5 million house and to pay £20.000 into their pension every year?
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
She is precisely the upwardly mobile striver which Britain now punitively taxes. We need more people like her, despite the silliness of noting the emotional strain of her redecoration.
I've got to the final stage interview of a job (strictly speaking in the public sector) which pays less than I currently earn because I've basically given up and it's just not worth it anymore; I'd rather spend more time with my family.
So, this is a real thing.
Interesting, Casino.
My daughter did exactly that about a year ago. She seems happy with the decision.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
You said you hoped a future PM would be "a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America." All well and good, but the criticism of many Remainers, and the Remain cabal of politicians in particular, was that they were putting the future prosperity of some third party state ahead of that of the UK
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
He is saying that our politicians should have to tell us if they are acting in the interests of any other foreign power, and that includes the EU. For example, signing a 'deal' that does absolutely shit all for the UK, except get the EU to stop using SPS checks to block UK imports - something that was against WTM rules and a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement anyway, and in return we renew their fishing rights over our waters for another 12 years. Or signing tens of millions over to France to 'smash the gangs', whereupon they let over more people than they did before the deal was signed.
Perhaps before we question where Farage's loyalties lie, we should ask serious questions about where Starmer's loyalties lie.
Promoting the EU across the World and our interests within the EU when we were integrated into the constitution of the EU and net beneficiaries for example of EU World trade policy is wholly different from batting for Putin's Russia or Trump's USA with no tangible benefits for us.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
You said you hoped a future PM would be "a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America." All well and good, but the criticism of many Remainers, and the Remain cabal of politicians in particular, was that they were putting the future prosperity of some third party state ahead of that of the UK
Building a closer relationship with India is the thinking beyond the Chagos giveaway.
Like most of our foreign policy attempts, a ludicrous misplaced hope. India, like China, and frankly like the EU, will take what a weak UK is prepared to give and get very hostile if anything is asked for in return. We would have better and more constructive relationships with these powers we had boundaries and mutual respect. As it is we are still disliked but also despised.
British respect for “the rules” is its superpower. Also it’s Achilles heel.
Nobody else plays by the rules as the British understand them. This was true within the EU, when Britain loved to gold plate regulations from Brussels unto uncompetitiveness, and it’s true geopolitically when movement on Chagos inspires more contempt than respect, sadly.
I don’t think this is really the explanation.
Chagos is the culmination of a long and little-known relationship that Keir Starmer has with Mauritius. And frankly I think 'the rules' have very little to do with it.
He can look forward to retiring there - a country that he is responsible for eliminating the national debt of, rather than here, a country he will have bankrupted.
We're back to the EU is an enemy and Russia isn't stage again?
Russia is recognised as an enemy. That makes it difficult to sign unfair treaties and deals benfitting them to the tune of billions. The EU isn't, which is why such things are considered valid statecraft.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
He is saying that our politicians should have to tell us if they are acting in the interests of any other foreign power, and that includes the EU. For example, signing a 'deal' that does absolutely shit all for the UK, except get the EU to stop using SPS checks to block UK imports - something that was against WTM rules and a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement anyway, and in return we renew their fishing rights over our waters for another 12 years. Or signing tens of millions over to France to 'smash the gangs', whereupon they let over more people than they did before the deal was signed.
Perhaps before we question where Farage's loyalties lie, we should ask serious questions about where Starmer's loyalties lie.
Promoting the EU across the World and our interests within the EU when we were integrated into the constitution of the EU and net beneficiaries for example of EU World trade policy is wholly different from batting for Putin's Russia or Trump's USA with no tangible benefits for us.
Comments
And/Or ended up having to buy half from a divorcing spouse, but doesn't want to mention that for whatever reason.
Either way, she could end up suddenly being more committed.
So, unless stuff is in volume 2, then I think 'no' is the answer.
I remain appalled at this vast waste of public money.
Hopefully this is one report where the usual lessons are learned.
The point is that Rubio us still trying to pretend that all this shit makes sense.
Vance is an amoral scumbag; Rubio actually knows better.
We seem to be getting drowned in moaning from the rich - and someone with a £2.5m house and a £125 salary is rich - and moaning from those getting benefits (I wont describe them as the poor as many of them aren't).
Ultimately though this country is and has been for decades living beyond its means and that needs to stop.
And you know what? It’s mostly fine, for most people. But at a national level we are living beyond our means. Time for a reality check. Not coming Tuesday.
As for national economies, I remember discussing with DavidL how the balance of payments was a major element of the news on TV - visible and invisible exports, the need for better figures ... and how it has disappeared in recent decades.
As a nation we lack basic numeracy and financial literacy.
If only there was an enormous political and economic cabal of nations on our doorstep that we could closely align to.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
Like ours, come to think of it.
I've worked with many very hard working an talented people who don't make 10% of what I make. I'm afraid that's a Telegraph view of the world but not an attractive one
You don't build close relationships through surrendering territories and interest; you lose respect and ratchet up demands for more.
As to Gill being a nobody. I suspect you have a point. There should however be media questions, and detailed ones at that, asking Farage about the content of his statements in the European Parliament and elsewhere and how he reached the conclusions he did, bearing in mind the rest of us thought Putin to be an expansionist with serious human rights questions to answer both at home and abroad at the time Farage was singing his praises.
I have not accused Mr Farage of any wrongdoing but I would like him to explain the incredible, presumably coincidental, similarities between his speeches and Gill's speeches.
I am of the opinion that our next Prime Minister having unexplained connections with an enemy of our state is far more vexing than Starmer tripping over at the G20.
It's entirely a sop to the Labour Left.
I’m just giving you the underlying thinking.
So, this is a real thing.
It’s a the single best thing the government can do to ameliorate child poverty, which has been growing steeply (even as ever higher numbers of pensioners weigh up how many cruises to take this year).
The sop to the Labour left was the pathetic climb down on first winter fuel payments and then, criminally, runaway PIP costs.
I don’t like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_People's_Republic
Putin is way ahead of you on that idea.
As for anti EU politicians making speeches blaming the EU for Russian aggression towards Ukraine, you must have noticed that UKIP MEPs, and Eurosceptics in general, blame(d) the EU for almost everything. They didn't have to be paid to say so. That's why it didn't really feel like big news for Gill to be making the speeches and comments he did back then
There are plenty of research papers that do make international comparisons, like this one looking at the Nordic countries: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/34/4/737/7675929
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
The only serious way out of poverty is real welfare reform, and that means getting far more people in work.
Traditional Labour MPs who actually worked for a living would be appalled.
We also saw with our own eyes Farage present on Russia Today, spend a lot of time with various Russian officials, and involve himself with characters like Julian Assange.
It would be incredibly surprising, tbh, if UKIP and Brexit Parties (dunno about Reform) were NOT funded in part by Russian interests, even if nobody has found a “smoking gun.”
An astonishing amount of global ne’erdowells, including Epstein and Trump, seem to have Russian connections.
It’s kind of weird. I don’t know anybody with “Russian connections”, but perhaps I just don’t mix in the right circles.
And it’s incredibly effective.
Too bad the Israeli state itself has fallen into clutches of the extreme right wing.
My daughter did exactly that about a year ago. She seems happy with the decision.
Good luck, whatever you do.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/x-mi5-spy-do-mr-and-mrs-banks-have-something-to-tell-us/
Now Russian funding and connections do not mean that a person is nessecarily going to act in Russia's interests. Johnson strongly backed Ukraine in 2022 despite everything that Russia did for him over the years. Perhaps that says more about how Johnson betrays all his friends, but noteworthy nonetheless.
It would be good if Farage did come clean about his Russian connections. Clearly they did try to influence him.
Also it’s Achilles heel.
Nobody else plays by the rules as the British understand them. This was true within the EU, when Britain loved to gold plate regulations from Brussels unto uncompetitiveness, and it’s true geopolitically when movement on Chagos inspires more contempt than respect, sadly.
Perhaps before we question where Farage's loyalties lie, we should ask serious questions about where Starmer's loyalties lie.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4p42kydx9o
Intelligence and Security
Committee of Parliament
Russia
https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CCS207_CCS0221966010-001_Russia-Report-v02-Web_Accessible.pdf
Or this ?
Countering Russian influence in
the UK
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9472/CBP-9472.pdf
Chagos is the culmination of a long and little-known relationship that Keir Starmer has with Mauritius. And frankly I think 'the rules' have very little to do with it.
He can look forward to retiring there - a country that he is responsible for eliminating the national debt of, rather than here, a country he will have bankrupted.