I can't get over how poor an idea the mileage thing is. SNP will be delighted though - hammers rural Scotland, which happens to also be the part of the UK generating all the electricity that powers these EVs. The leaflets write themselves.
At least C2W wasn't binned. Phew.
Re the mileage thing: 3p mile for say 10,000 miles annually is £300. For annual mileage of 14,000 miles it is £420. That's already £75 dearer than a lot of diesel pick ups.
Folk will start to notice the impact of all this soon
How do you get that? Road fuel duty is double the new EV tax per mile…
I've criticised Rachel Reeves harshly today, but fair's fair, I'm going to applaud her for doing something good that will make a difference to my local area.
She's allocated £20m to redevelop the Inchgreen dry dock in Greenock. It's a unique piece of infrastructure that's long been left to rot, but it'll now be repaired and returned to service with the intention of using it for defence related work. A training centre to supply workers will also be set up.
For many years there's been a campaign to restore Inchgreen and the SNP administration refused to consider it. Some nice positive news for an area that really needs it right now.
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
It was noted on the Radio 4 programme this afternoon.
The limit on Universal Credit of 2 children will be removed: The policy, introduced under the Conservatives in 2017, means parents can only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children.
Announcing the move, which is estimated to cost £3bn a year by 2029-30, Reeves said her party did "not believe that the solution to a broken welfare system is to punish the most vulnerable children". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyx4ggyj44o
But the maximum limit on total benefits per month is £2110 in London, or £1835 outside London. Those are the family numbers; single person numbers are lower. (It's complicated, but that number must include housing costs. The benefits cap does not apply to people who earn more than about £1000 per annum.) https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/when-benefit-cap-affects-universal-credit-payments
The potential issue here is that some people could lose eligibility for the extra child-related benefits if it takes them above the cap.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
Did you watch the case of the missing cyclist between Bridge of Orchy and Tyndrum? The Crown wanted to pursue a murder charge against one of the defendants, then accepted a plea of culpable homicide. The murder charge surprised some, as it was difficult to prove the intent to deliberately kill. Dark road, late at night etc. I think there may be similarities here, ie difficult to prove he went out to murder prior to hitting him. Both brothers were prosecuted and convicted of defeating the ends of justice.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
Government says it will spend £1.8 billion on Digital ID, a proposal which was not in Labour's manifesto.
But cannot apparently find the money to reduce the backlog in the criminal justice system.
Of course, it bloody can. The total budget for the Courts and Tribunals service is £3.1 billion. So that £1.8 billion or a significant proportion of it would do a great deal to reduce and probably eliminate the backlog in pretty short order.
There is one more point which I shall explore in more detail later and it is this.
if rape gets a jury trial but lesser sexual offences do not, then there will be pressure to charge men only with those lesser offences and not the more serious ones. In the interests of speed etc.,. (Note the utter nonsense the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, was saying today about "timely justice". I wonder if he's tried using that phrase to the subpostmasters.)
So rape convictions could actually go down.
Then the government will claim that it has solved VAWG until the next Wayne Couzens or David Carrick and we discover that in fact they have a long history of rapes which were not taken seriously.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
Did you watch the case of the missing cyclist between Bridge of Orchy and Tyndrum? The Crown wanted to pursue a murder charge against one of the defendants, then accepted a plea of culpable homicide. The murder charge surprised some, as it was difficult to prove the intent to deliberately kill. Dark road, late at night etc. I think there may be similarities here, ie difficult to prove he went out to murder prior to hitting him. Both brothers were prosecuted and convicted of defeating the ends of justice.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
I did, and I understood the logic of the COPFS in that case - though it's worth noting that in Scotland we have a looser definition of murder - you don't need intent to kill, just wicked recklessness. If it happened in Glasgow rather than Liverpool I wonder if it the charge would have been more serious.
(I'll probably be whacked by DavidL for this brief attempt Scots Law, and rightly so. My attempt at law at uni was brief and wholly unsuccessful, respect to anyone who can get through all that stuff about thumbs snails in Calmac ferries or whatever it is)
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
Thank you - I wasn't aware of it
The politics is like the Housing Element of Universal Credit - it is not index linked except when politically necessary, so it falls in real terms by the rate of inflation each year, plus can be a bit of a political football.
£22k is the family outside London cap.
It was introduced in 2013, cut by 10% in 2015 (cash terms), and is now about the same in cash terms as 2013.
I can't get over how poor an idea the mileage thing is. SNP will be delighted though - hammers rural Scotland, which happens to also be the part of the UK generating all the electricity that powers these EVs. The leaflets write themselves.
At least C2W wasn't binned. Phew.
Re the mileage thing: 3p mile for say 10,000 miles annually is £300. For annual mileage of 14,000 miles it is £420. That's already £75 dearer than a lot of diesel pick ups.
Folk will start to notice the impact of all this soon
How do you get that? Road fuel duty is double the new EV tax per mile…
Ive Just paid £345 for mine but admittedly thats not counting future inflation or changes
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
Did you watch the case of the missing cyclist between Bridge of Orchy and Tyndrum? The Crown wanted to pursue a murder charge against one of the defendants, then accepted a plea of culpable homicide. The murder charge surprised some, as it was difficult to prove the intent to deliberately kill. Dark road, late at night etc. I think there may be similarities here, ie difficult to prove he went out to murder prior to hitting him. Both brothers were prosecuted and convicted of defeating the ends of justice.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
I did, and I understood the logic of the COPFS in that case - though it's worth noting that in Scotland we have a looser definition of murder - you don't need intent to kill, just wicked recklessness. If it happened in Glasgow rather than Liverpool I wonder if it the charge would have been more serious.
(I'll probably be whacked by DavidL for this brief attempt Scots Law, and rightly so. My attempt at law at uni was brief and wholly unsuccessful, respect to anyone who can get through all that stuff about thumbs snails in Calmac ferries or whatever it is)
Snails in ginger beer - product liability Snails in a postbox - contract law
Interesting how Hong Kong used to have very few serious fires despite having so many tower blocks. Maybe safety standards have slipped since it became a less free society.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
Did you watch the case of the missing cyclist between Bridge of Orchy and Tyndrum? The Crown wanted to pursue a murder charge against one of the defendants, then accepted a plea of culpable homicide. The murder charge surprised some, as it was difficult to prove the intent to deliberately kill. Dark road, late at night etc. I think there may be similarities here, ie difficult to prove he went out to murder prior to hitting him. Both brothers were prosecuted and convicted of defeating the ends of justice.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
I did, and I understood the logic of the COPFS in that case - though it's worth noting that in Scotland we have a looser definition of murder - you don't need intent to kill, just wicked recklessness. If it happened in Glasgow rather than Liverpool I wonder if it the charge would have been more serious.
(I'll probably be whacked by DavidL for this brief attempt Scots Law, and rightly so. My attempt at law at uni was brief and wholly unsuccessful, respect to anyone who can get through all that stuff about thumbs snails in Calmac ferries or whatever it is)
I've never studied law and am no expert myself. Not sure what the best way out for the Liverpool defendant is now he has plead guilty, maybe to claim he had a panic attack? It's a miracle there were no fatalities in the incident. He will almost certainly get a very hefty jail term
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
Did you watch the case of the missing cyclist between Bridge of Orchy and Tyndrum? The Crown wanted to pursue a murder charge against one of the defendants, then accepted a plea of culpable homicide. The murder charge surprised some, as it was difficult to prove the intent to deliberately kill. Dark road, late at night etc. I think there may be similarities here, ie difficult to prove he went out to murder prior to hitting him. Both brothers were prosecuted and convicted of defeating the ends of justice.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
I did, and I understood the logic of the COPFS in that case - though it's worth noting that in Scotland we have a looser definition of murder - you don't need intent to kill, just wicked recklessness. If it happened in Glasgow rather than Liverpool I wonder if it the charge would have been more serious.
(I'll probably be whacked by DavidL for this brief attempt Scots Law, and rightly so. My attempt at law at uni was brief and wholly unsuccessful, respect to anyone who can get through all that stuff about thumbs snails in Calmac ferries or whatever it is)
For anyone not familiar, that was one of the most horrific cases in recent years - aside from those where a driver deliberately hunts down vulnerable road users to injure or kill with their vehicle *.
A drunk driver killed a cyclist of a charity run, did not call medical aid and left him to die, then came back with his brother and buried the body in the woods. He showed his gf the grave site 3 years later and she dobbed him in. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg71k7ww47o
* These happen all the time, but are usually injury not death. We had an unusual one in this area a couple of years ago where a big drug criminal hunted down a smaller drug criminal on a Sur Ron and killed him, who had become enraged after the latter peered into his parked up Landrover where the former was boffing a woman he had met in a pub.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
Did you watch the case of the missing cyclist between Bridge of Orchy and Tyndrum? The Crown wanted to pursue a murder charge against one of the defendants, then accepted a plea of culpable homicide. The murder charge surprised some, as it was difficult to prove the intent to deliberately kill. Dark road, late at night etc. I think there may be similarities here, ie difficult to prove he went out to murder prior to hitting him. Both brothers were prosecuted and convicted of defeating the ends of justice.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
I did, and I understood the logic of the COPFS in that case - though it's worth noting that in Scotland we have a looser definition of murder - you don't need intent to kill, just wicked recklessness. If it happened in Glasgow rather than Liverpool I wonder if it the charge would have been more serious.
(I'll probably be whacked by DavidL for this brief attempt Scots Law, and rightly so. My attempt at law at uni was brief and wholly unsuccessful, respect to anyone who can get through all that stuff about thumbs snails in Calmac ferries or whatever it is)
For anyone not familiar, that was one of the most horrific cases in recent years - aside from those where a driver deliberately hunts down vulnerable road users to injure or kill with their vehicle *.
A drunk driver killed a cyclist of a charity run, did not call medical aid and left him to die, then came back with his brother and buried the body in the woods. He showed his gf the grave site 3 years later and she dobbed him in. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg71k7ww47o
* These happen all the time, but are usually injury not death. We had an unusual one in this area a couple of years ago where a big drug criminal hunted down a smaller drug criminal on a Sur Ron and killed him, who had become enraged after the latter peered into his parked up Landrover where the former was boffing a woman he had met in a pub.
The West Highland Way runs right past it (open ground rather than a wood, the body was preserved by the peat). Dark jokes about that estate over the years even before this particular incident.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
Did you watch the case of the missing cyclist between Bridge of Orchy and Tyndrum? The Crown wanted to pursue a murder charge against one of the defendants, then accepted a plea of culpable homicide. The murder charge surprised some, as it was difficult to prove the intent to deliberately kill. Dark road, late at night etc. I think there may be similarities here, ie difficult to prove he went out to murder prior to hitting him. Both brothers were prosecuted and convicted of defeating the ends of justice.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
Violence with a motor vehicle is acceptable according to society and the justice system. There's also the man who chased and ran over a cyclist in his Range Rover, life-changing injuries not killed luckily, who got off or a minor conviction. Iirc despite his wife who was the front seat passenger giving evidence against him that it was deliberate.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
There are about 2,500 private schools so £40m is about £1,600 per school on average. That's not a lot. Shouldn't close a school.
You're adding a layer of wrongness on top of Casino's (admitted) wrongness. It's not the cost to the school, but the exchequer which is being modeled.
I can't get over how poor an idea the mileage thing is. SNP will be delighted though - hammers rural Scotland, which happens to also be the part of the UK generating all the electricity that powers these EVs. The leaflets write themselves.
At least C2W wasn't binned. Phew.
Re the mileage thing: 3p mile for say 10,000 miles annually is £300. For annual mileage of 14,000 miles it is £420. That's already £75 dearer than a lot of diesel pick ups.
Folk will start to notice the impact of all this soon
How do you get that? Road fuel duty is double the new EV tax per mile…
The problem is that petrol is so efficient that petrol including road fuel duty is cheaper per mile than EVs (charged publicly) even before this tax is added.
Now this tax on top too.
Its madness, utter madness, when we're supposed to be transitioning all vehicles to being EVs, not just those that can be charged on driveways.
I'd miss the 'cheerio's' bit of her response from Kemi (just shown on Newsnight).
Brilliant.
Like Hague she became leader too soon, but maybe also like Hague she will come to dominate PMQs with humour as Lab collapses.
Fat lot of good it did Hague, of course.
But it is good to see a punchier opposition, and maybe a bit like the conference speech she can use this to lay another building block on the road to recovery. I would much rather the Tories drag themselves back up from the abyss than Farage replace them.
My phone is off the hook tonight. The Chancellor announced help for Hospitality today on Business Rates. Operators have done the numbers...it's a massive tax rise!
I did point this out earlier...will the last pub standing remember to turn the lights out. Turn over taxes and government mandated increases on hospitality businesses have become absolutely crippling.
I'm keeping my counsel on switching to Your Party - I'll see how the next couple of months go. But I will say I was surprised by the enormous turnout at their public meeting in Oxford this evening - seveal hundred people there and a standing ovation for Corbyn. The impression from the press (and on here) is that they're a busted flush - maybe, but there's still a lot of interest.
I'm keeping my counsel on switching to Your Party - I'll see how the next couple of months go. But I will say I was surprised by the enormous turnout at their public meeting in Oxford this evening - seveal hundred people there and a standing ovation for Corbyn. The impression from the press (and on here) is that they're a busted flush - maybe, but there's still a lot of interest.
What was the age spread? Or, to put it another way, how many were students?
Schools could face a 4.9 per cent drop in funding following a Government pledge to absorb special needs overspend, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
Today's Budget revealed from 2028-29, councils will no longer have to run deficits to pay for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Instead, it said ‘future funding implications’ will be managed by central government, and that plans will later be announced to deal with historic deficits.
However, in an analysis report, the OBR said the Government ‘has not set out’ how this would be paid for, at a starting cost of £6.3 billion per year. And it said that if the Department for Education (DfE) were made to absorb the cost, it could eat into the money schools get for other running costs.
My phone is off the hook tonight. The Chancellor announced help for Hospitality today on Business Rates. Operators have done the numbers...it's a massive tax rise!
I did point this out earlier...will the last pub standing remember to turn the lights out. Turn over taxes and government mandated increases on hospitality businesses have become absolutely crippling.
I was in a pub tonight. Virtually empty just before Christmas. Labour hate pubs and their high tax policies ensure that no one can afford to go to pubs and pubs are struggling to run their businesses due to massive employment tax costs. Thanks Labour!
Schools could face a 4.9 per cent drop in funding following a Government pledge to absorb special needs overspend, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
Today's Budget revealed from 2028-29, councils will no longer have to run deficits to pay for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Instead, it said ‘future funding implications’ will be managed by central government, and that plans will later be announced to deal with historic deficits.
However, in an analysis report, the OBR said the Government ‘has not set out’ how this would be paid for, at a starting cost of £6.3 billion per year. And it said that if the Department for Education (DfE) were made to absorb the cost, it could eat into the money schools get for other running costs.
Long term better to take these things off council's plate though, I think.
Schools could face a 4.9 per cent drop in funding following a Government pledge to absorb special needs overspend, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
Today's Budget revealed from 2028-29, councils will no longer have to run deficits to pay for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Instead, it said ‘future funding implications’ will be managed by central government, and that plans will later be announced to deal with historic deficits.
However, in an analysis report, the OBR said the Government ‘has not set out’ how this would be paid for, at a starting cost of £6.3 billion per year. And it said that if the Department for Education (DfE) were made to absorb the cost, it could eat into the money schools get for other running costs.
Long term better to take these things off council's plate though, I think.
Money got to come from somewhere...more borrowing....more tax rises...
I liked her response overall. But I thought that was one of the weaker lines. It felt like a pre-prepared one that she felt she still had to use despite the circumstances.
I'm keeping my counsel on switching to Your Party - I'll see how the next couple of months go. But I will say I was surprised by the enormous turnout at their public meeting in Oxford this evening - seveal hundred people there and a standing ovation for Corbyn. The impression from the press (and on here) is that they're a busted flush - maybe, but there's still a lot of interest.
The point is not that they have a lot of support in a single room,the point is whether they can harness that interest nationwide and turn it into an election-contesting machine with the necessary logistics and in-house expertise. I don't think they can, because Corbyn has demonstrated again and again that he just doesn't do meetings or organisation.
Schools could face a 4.9 per cent drop in funding following a Government pledge to absorb special needs overspend, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
Today's Budget revealed from 2028-29, councils will no longer have to run deficits to pay for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Instead, it said ‘future funding implications’ will be managed by central government, and that plans will later be announced to deal with historic deficits.
However, in an analysis report, the OBR said the Government ‘has not set out’ how this would be paid for, at a starting cost of £6.3 billion per year. And it said that if the Department for Education (DfE) were made to absorb the cost, it could eat into the money schools get for other running costs.
Long term better to take these things off council's plate though, I think.
Money got to come from somewhere...more borrowing....more tax rises...
Oh, I mean morally. It doesn't seem like a local concern.
From the Labour friendly Resolution Foundation....
The outlook for living standards has worsened – with real disposable incomes rising by a paltry 0.5 a year over the Parliament – the second worst since records began in the 1950s. And while many will focus on rising taxes, an ever greater concern for living standards is the projected rise in unemployment.
Rachel from Accounts smashed it, the economy that is.
From the Labour friendly Resolution Foundation....
The outlook for living standards has worsened – with real disposable incomes rising by a paltry 0.5 a year over the Parliament – the second worst since records began in the 1950s. And while many will focus on rising taxes, an ever greater concern for living standards is the projected rise in unemployment.
Rachel from Accounts smashed it, the economy that is.
Refreshing the Resolution Foundation isn't shilling for Labour, despite their former leader being a Labour MP.
From the Labour friendly Resolution Foundation....
The outlook for living standards has worsened – with real disposable incomes rising by a paltry 0.5 a year over the Parliament – the second worst since records began in the 1950s. And while many will focus on rising taxes, an ever greater concern for living standards is the projected rise in unemployment.
Rachel from Accounts smashed it, the economy that is.
So the same low growth rate as under the 2010 to 2024 Conservative government.
From the Labour friendly Resolution Foundation....
The outlook for living standards has worsened – with real disposable incomes rising by a paltry 0.5 a year over the Parliament – the second worst since records began in the 1950s. And while many will focus on rising taxes, an ever greater concern for living standards is the projected rise in unemployment.
Rachel from Accounts smashed it, the economy that is.
So the same low growth rate as under the 2010 to 2024 Conservative government.
What happened to new government, growth, growth, growth. Instead all we are getting is more poorly managed declined combined with historic record level of taxation. Smashing.
From the Labour friendly Resolution Foundation....
The outlook for living standards has worsened – with real disposable incomes rising by a paltry 0.5 a year over the Parliament – the second worst since records began in the 1950s. And while many will focus on rising taxes, an ever greater concern for living standards is the projected rise in unemployment.
Rachel from Accounts smashed it, the economy that is.
So the same low growth rate as under the 2010 to 2024 Conservative government.
What happened to new government, growth, growth, growth. Instead all we are getting is more poorly managed declined combined with historic record level of taxation. Smashing.
Yes I would hope they would be better than the absolute shower that predeceased them.
From the Labour friendly Resolution Foundation....
The outlook for living standards has worsened – with real disposable incomes rising by a paltry 0.5 a year over the Parliament – the second worst since records began in the 1950s. And while many will focus on rising taxes, an ever greater concern for living standards is the projected rise in unemployment.
Rachel from Accounts smashed it, the economy that is.
So the same low growth rate as under the 2010 to 2024 Conservative government.
What happened to new government, growth, growth, growth. Instead all we are getting is more poorly managed declined combined with historic record level of taxation. Smashing.
Yes I would hope they would be better than the absolute shower that predeceased them.
I'm keeping my counsel on switching to Your Party - I'll see how the next couple of months go. But I will say I was surprised by the enormous turnout at their public meeting in Oxford this evening - seveal hundred people there and a standing ovation for Corbyn. The impression from the press (and on here) is that they're a busted flush - maybe, but there's still a lot of interest.
But to do what? He might take some votes off labour and win his Islington seat next time but what purpose will it serve? Or do you think it could replace Labour?
The next net migration update is expected tomorrow . It’s likely to show another big fall which might please some but is one of the reasons that growth is struggling .
The OBR note this as one of the contributing factors .
The next net migration update is expected tomorrow . It’s likely to show another big fall which might please some but is one of the reasons that growth is struggling .
The OBR note this as one of the contributing factors .
The next net migration update is expected tomorrow . It’s likely to show another big fall which might please some but is one of the reasons that growth is struggling .
The OBR note this as one of the contributing factors .
High time we made per capita the headline figure.
I think Ed Conway showed the GDP "growth" when you account for that, neither the Tories nor Labour want people focusing on such things....
Great job by chancellor and leader of the opposition, British people don't appreciate how great their politicians are.
Also I love the House of Commons moderation rules.
Leader of the Opposition: "You said you are proud to be the first female chancellor, but you are the worst, you cretin, you fool, you waste of skin, you total and utter useless shitstain, you incompetent shower of piss". Speaker of the House: EVERYBODY STOP CLAPPING, NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO CLAP, PLEASE SHOW SOME DECORUM
I'm keeping my counsel on switching to Your Party - I'll see how the next couple of months go. But I will say I was surprised by the enormous turnout at their public meeting in Oxford this evening - seveal hundred people there and a standing ovation for Corbyn. The impression from the press (and on here) is that they're a busted flush - maybe, but there's still a lot of interest.
Corbyn is box office, but a party needs more than an 80 year old celebrity, and I don't think YP does.
No,. I thought Reeves gave a confident budget speech that contained few of the trailed horrors advertised. After the fiasco of all the leaking over the last 2 months and doom laden talk it went well, despite the OBR prematurely publishing it. I hope that she has learned the benefit of budget purdah, and will get OBR water-tight. I am not a fan of this government and won't vote for them but she did alright. She lives to fight another day.
Badenoch's response was poor, containing little of substance and was hectoring and shouty. I was listening on 5Live and turned her off before she finished because it was so unlistenable. There was no insight or context. To say that the freezing of thresholds breaks the pledge on tax rises without acknowledging that the same threshold freeze was put in place by her own government until 2028 is just rank hypocracy. I really though she would be better as LOTO than she has been, and the opposition looks a long way off looking a viable alternative government, or even realising why they had such a crushing defeat 16 months ago.
I'm keeping my counsel on switching to Your Party - I'll see how the next couple of months go. But I will say I was surprised by the enormous turnout at their public meeting in Oxford this evening - seveal hundred people there and a standing ovation for Corbyn. The impression from the press (and on here) is that they're a busted flush - maybe, but there's still a lot of interest.
Corbyn is box office, but a party needs more than an 80 year old celebrity, and I don't think YP does.
No,. I thought Reeves gave a confident budget speech that contained few of the trailed horrors advertised. After the fiasco of all the leaking over the last 2 months and doom laden talk it went well, despite the OBR prematurely publishing it. I hope that she has learned the benefit of budget purdah, and will get OBR water-tight. I am not a fan of this government and won't vote for them but she did alright. She lives to fight another day.
Badenoch's response was poor, containing little of substance and was hectoring and shouty. I was listening on 5Live and turned her off before she finished because it was so unlistenable. There was no insight or context. To say that the freezing of thresholds breaks the pledge on tax rises without acknowledging that the same threshold freeze was put in place by her own government until 2028 is just rank hypocracy. I really though she would be better as LOTO than she has been, and the opposition looks a long way off looking a viable alternative government, or even realising why they had such a crushing defeat 16 months ago.
You are falling for all the anchoring. Labour promised no more than £8.5bn in tax rises, we are now at £80bn from two budgets and the highest tax burden ever incoming. There are loads of "horrors", it just isn't one big thing, it masses and masses of small things or fiscal drag whacking people in every which way e.g. student loan repayments.
Also just become your wage hasn't been taxed into the ground immediately, lots more costs / turn over taxes on businesses, we are all going to end up paying for them e.g. supermarkets got smashed again after last year. Nobody escapes paying for those costs as we all have to eat.
Hospitality have again got to find a load more due to turn over tax increases. Its got bloody expensive to eat out these days already.
Another Community Note for the Prime Minister, for saying “This Labour government is making your energy bills cheaper” when the energy price cap is actually being raised in the new year.
Another Community Note for the Prime Minister, for saying “This Labour government is making your energy bills cheaper” when the energy price cap is actually being raised in the new year.
I noticed various Labour talking heads have also been trying to push that they are reducing the debt....Another £50bn in borrowing I believe was the result of yesterdays budget, assuming everything goes to plan, which is hasn't so far and they borrow more seemingly every month than planned.
Also the big "cut" they announced is only £150 worth on average persons bill.
Also just become your wage hasn't been taxed into the ground immediately, lots more costs / turn over taxes on businesses, we are all going to end up paying for them e.g. supermarkets got smashed again after last year. Nobody escapes paying for those costs as we all have to eat.
Hospitality have again got to find a load more due to turn over tax increases. Its got bloody expensive to eat out these days already.
No doubt when Tesco increases prices and makes a modest profit relative to its turnover we will get more of this.
Totally missing the point of why prices are rising, or part of it.
No,. I thought Reeves gave a confident budget speech that contained few of the trailed horrors advertised. After the fiasco of all the leaking over the last 2 months and doom laden talk it went well, despite the OBR prematurely publishing it. I hope that she has learned the benefit of budget purdah, and will get OBR water-tight. I am not a fan of this government and won't vote for them but she did alright. She lives to fight another day.
Badenoch's response was poor, containing little of substance and was hectoring and shouty. I was listening on 5Live and turned her off before she finished because it was so unlistenable. There was no insight or context. To say that the freezing of thresholds breaks the pledge on tax rises without acknowledging that the same threshold freeze was put in place by her own government until 2028 is just rank hypocracy. I really though she would be better as LOTO than she has been, and the opposition looks a long way off looking a viable alternative government, or even realising why they had such a crushing defeat 16 months ago.
You are falling for all the anchoring. Labour promised no more than £8.5bn in tax rises, we are now at £80bn from two budgets and the highest tax burden ever incoming. There are loads of "horrors", it just isn't one big thing, it masses and masses of small things or fiscal drag whacking people in every which way e.g. student loan repayments.
Anyone who is financially literate could eee that both the Labour and Tory manifestos at the 24 GE were nonsense. Either major tax rises or major spending cuts or both were needed to balance the books, so I am not surprised at all.
That they both published tissues of lies in order to get votes is why we are in the mess we are in, and why voter cynicysm is rampant. Maybe it isn't possible to be elected by telling the truth but it would be interesting to see someone try.
Also just become your wage hasn't been taxed into the ground immediately, lots more costs / turn over taxes on businesses, we are all going to end up paying for them e.g. supermarkets got smashed again after last year. Nobody escapes paying for those costs as we all have to eat.
Hospitality have again got to find a load more due to turn over tax increases. Its got bloody expensive to eat out these days already.
No doubt when Tesco increases prices and makes a modest profit relative to its turnover we will get more of this.
Totally missing the point of why prices are rising, or part of it.
I'm keeping my counsel on switching to Your Party - I'll see how the next couple of months go. But I will say I was surprised by the enormous turnout at their public meeting in Oxford this evening - seveal hundred people there and a standing ovation for Corbyn. The impression from the press (and on here) is that they're a busted flush - maybe, but there's still a lot of interest.
Corbyn is box office, but a party needs more than an 80 year old celebrity, and I don't think YP does.
To be fair, YP also has a woman who is hanging onto £800k in donations.
Another Community Note for the Prime Minister, for saying “This Labour government is making your energy bills cheaper” when the energy price cap is actually being raised in the new year.
I noticed various Labour talking heads have also been trying to push that they are reducing the debt....Another £50bn in borrowing I believe was the result of yesterdays budget, assuming everything goes to plan, which is hasn't so far and they borrow more seemingly every month than planned.
Also the big "cut" they announced is only £150 worth on average persons bill.
Well they’ve added around £110bn to PSND so far this year, for a total of £2.8trn.
My phone is off the hook tonight. The Chancellor announced help for Hospitality today on Business Rates. Operators have done the numbers...it's a massive tax rise!
I did point this out earlier...will the last pub standing remember to turn the lights out. Turn over taxes and government mandated increases on hospitality businesses have become absolutely crippling.
I was in a pub tonight. Virtually empty just before Christmas. Labour hate pubs and their high tax policies ensure that no one can afford to go to pubs and pubs are struggling to run their businesses due to massive employment tax costs. Thanks Labour!
Yes, the Binsted Arms near me announced it was closing today.
No,. I thought Reeves gave a confident budget speech that contained few of the trailed horrors advertised. After the fiasco of all the leaking over the last 2 months and doom laden talk it went well, despite the OBR prematurely publishing it. I hope that she has learned the benefit of budget purdah, and will get OBR water-tight. I am not a fan of this government and won't vote for them but she did alright. She lives to fight another day.
Badenoch's response was poor, containing little of substance and was hectoring and shouty. I was listening on 5Live and turned her off before she finished because it was so unlistenable. There was no insight or context. To say that the freezing of thresholds breaks the pledge on tax rises without acknowledging that the same threshold freeze was put in place by her own government until 2028 is just rank hypocracy. I really though she would be better as LOTO than she has been, and the opposition looks a long way off looking a viable alternative government, or even realising why they had such a crushing defeat 16 months ago.
As @MaxPB said the other day, Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
No,. I thought Reeves gave a confident budget speech that contained few of the trailed horrors advertised. After the fiasco of all the leaking over the last 2 months and doom laden talk it went well, despite the OBR prematurely publishing it. I hope that she has learned the benefit of budget purdah, and will get OBR water-tight. I am not a fan of this government and won't vote for them but she did alright. She lives to fight another day.
Badenoch's response was poor, containing little of substance and was hectoring and shouty. I was listening on 5Live and turned her off before she finished because it was so unlistenable. There was no insight or context. To say that the freezing of thresholds breaks the pledge on tax rises without acknowledging that the same threshold freeze was put in place by her own government until 2028 is just rank hypocracy. I really though she would be better as LOTO than she has been, and the opposition looks a long way off looking a viable alternative government, or even realising why they had such a crushing defeat 16 months ago.
You are falling for all the anchoring. Labour promised no more than £8.5bn in tax rises, we are now at £80bn from two budgets and the highest tax burden ever incoming. There are loads of "horrors", it just isn't one big thing, it masses and masses of small things or fiscal drag whacking people in every which way e.g. student loan repayments.
Anyone who is financially literate could eee that both the Labour and Tory manifestos at the 24 GE were nonsense. Either major tax rises or major spending cuts or both were needed to balance the books, so I am not surprised at all.
That they both published tissues of lies in order to get votes is why we are in the mess we are in, and why voter cynicysm is rampant. Maybe it isn't possible to be elected by telling the truth but it would be interesting to see someone try.
Oh man, wait until you see the Reform manifesto for the next General Election.
Also just become your wage hasn't been taxed into the ground immediately, lots more costs / turn over taxes on businesses, we are all going to end up paying for them e.g. supermarkets got smashed again after last year. Nobody escapes paying for those costs as we all have to eat.
Hospitality have again got to find a load more due to turn over tax increases. Its got bloody expensive to eat out these days already.
No doubt when Tesco increases prices and makes a modest profit relative to its turnover we will get more of this.
Totally missing the point of why prices are rising, or part of it.
One thing the budget show is that Labour aren't going to actual reform anything. There is no big bold vision. Its just drip drip drip more taxes, drag a load of people into higher rate tax and bung some more public spending at certain groups. And every new tax / change, appears pretty poorly thought out and adds complexity.
There isn't any desire of actually changing even some of the most glaring flaws. No plan for growth. Its just now poorly managed decline for a few years, load more taxes in the year before the GE to pay for all the spending being done now, and then pitching not being Reform at the next GE.
I wonder if this deputy speaker does private work. I would pay good money for her to shout at me and tell me off. If she had a pair of spectacles she could look over, I would pay double.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
You're not seriously going to dig in on this? You suggested it had been revised from £1.75 billion to £40 million. I just divided the numbers you came out with.
It's not a reduction by 98% if the original forecast was bollocks. I was comparing the propaganda with the reality.
If you're saying £40 million is 2% of 1.75bn then, um, sure, but that's taking pedantry to another level.
As it happens I misread it and the fact you were right is extremely annoying.
Another Community Note for the Prime Minister, for saying “This Labour government is making your energy bills cheaper” when the energy price cap is actually being raised in the new year.
I noticed various Labour talking heads have also been trying to push that they are reducing the debt....Another £50bn in borrowing I believe was the result of yesterdays budget, assuming everything goes to plan, which is hasn't so far and they borrow more seemingly every month than planned.
Also the big "cut" they announced is only £150 worth on average persons bill.
Well they’ve added around £110bn to PSND so far this year, for a total of £2.8trn.
To be fair, the total government debt (in nominal pounds doesn't need to come down): you just need to combine economic growth with moderate fiscal discipline.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
I saw a former school come up for sale (buildings) recently.
50,000 square foot and 20 acres for £2.5m (down from £4m). That’s pretty cheap on a psf basis
Is\ it possible there are restrictive conditions on the grounds, for instance from previous donors of the playing fields?
I haven’t done any work - that’s possible although those can be broken. My first thought was that’s a whole lot of roof, but that’s just me…
(I think you would do a deal to take down the classrooms and rebuild houses with the same square footage elsewhere and then subdivide the main house)
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
I saw a former school come up for sale (buildings) recently.
50,000 square foot and 20 acres for £2.5m (down from £4m). That’s pretty cheap on a psf basis
The most obvious market for these kind of buildings was the University sector but it is rapidly consolidating too. Such reductions in price will result in several schools breaching their banking covenants.
The country house market is down about 40% this year (I was told yesterday by someone in the space)
Maybe it was getting burned over the WFA, but government protecting the current oldies, while stuffing particularly the younger workers abilities to build a good pension, bit odd. They aren't going to vote for Labour.
The US has suspended the processing of all immigration requests for Afghan nationals pending a review of "security and vetting protocols", the US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced.
In a post on X, the agency said: "The protection and safety of our homeland and of the American people remains our singular focus and mission."
The decision comes after two National Guard soldiers were critically injured in a shooting near the White House. The alleged gunman was an Afghan national who entered the US in September 2021.
Comments
She's allocated £20m to redevelop the Inchgreen dry dock in Greenock. It's a unique piece of infrastructure that's long been left to rot, but it'll now be repaired and returned to service with the intention of using it for defence related work. A training centre to supply workers will also be set up.
For many years there's been a campaign to restore Inchgreen and the SNP administration refused to consider it. Some nice positive news for an area that really needs it right now.
The limit on Universal Credit of 2 children will be removed:
The policy, introduced under the Conservatives in 2017, means parents can only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children.
Announcing the move, which is estimated to cost £3bn a year by 2029-30, Reeves said her party did "not believe that the solution to a broken welfare system is to punish the most vulnerable children".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyx4ggyj44o
But the maximum limit on total benefits per month is £2110 in London, or £1835 outside London. Those are the family numbers; single person numbers are lower.
(It's complicated, but that number must include housing costs. The benefits cap does not apply to people who earn more than about £1000 per annum.)
https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/when-benefit-cap-affects-universal-credit-payments
The potential issue here is that some people could lose eligibility for the extra child-related benefits if it takes them above the cap.
Law is not my expertise, maybe someone else can help
if rape gets a jury trial but lesser sexual offences do not, then there will be pressure to charge men only with those lesser offences and not the more serious ones. In the interests of speed etc.,. (Note the utter nonsense the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, was saying today about "timely justice". I wonder if he's tried using that phrase to the subpostmasters.)
So rape convictions could actually go down.
Then the government will claim that it has solved VAWG until the next Wayne Couzens or David Carrick and we discover that in fact they have a long history of rapes which were not taken seriously.
(I'll probably be whacked by DavidL for this brief attempt Scots Law, and rightly so. My attempt at law at uni was brief and wholly unsuccessful, respect to anyone who can get through all that stuff about
thumbssnails in Calmac ferries or whatever it is)£22k is the family outside London cap.
It was introduced in 2013, cut by 10% in 2015 (cash terms), and is now about the same in cash terms as 2013.
Snails in a postbox - contract law
BBC news visits a working family in Halifax to discuss how budget hits them.
There's Fortnum and Mason hampers behind the journo on the shelves!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2emg1kj1klt
A drunk driver killed a cyclist of a charity run, did not call medical aid and left him to die, then came back with his brother and buried the body in the woods. He showed his gf the grave site 3 years later and she dobbed him in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg71k7ww47o
* These happen all the time, but are usually injury not death. We had an unusual one in this area a couple of years ago where a big drug criminal hunted down a smaller drug criminal on a Sur Ron and killed him, who had become enraged after the latter peered into his parked up Landrover where the former was boffing a woman he had met in a pub.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=monty+python+TV+blackmail#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7ff0cb22,vid:9ULY64_KG8Y,st:0
It's a bit The Thick of It though.
Its one way to resolve child custody.
https://x.com/CrewkerneGaz/status/1993709818943844653
So if you want optimism change channels!
She has chosen high taxes and high spending especially on benefits when she should have reduced spending and taxes
Anyway let's see where it all settles in public opinion
Brilliant.
Like Hague she became leader too soon, but maybe also like Hague she will come to dominate PMQs with humour as Lab collapses.
The Chancellor is too scared of the electorate
Aaron Bastani" (£)
https://unherd.com/2025/11/rachel-reeves-should-squeeze-the-middle
Now this tax on top too.
Its madness, utter madness, when we're supposed to be transitioning all vehicles to being EVs, not just those that can be charged on driveways.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/budget-will-ease-cost-of-living-pressures-next-year-but-backloads-fiscal-repair-job-to-eve-of-next-election/
But it is good to see a punchier opposition, and maybe a bit like the conference speech she can use this to lay another building block on the road to recovery. I would much rather the Tories drag themselves back up from the abyss than Farage replace them.
It's taking too long to nail these "public-spirited individuals who were just trying to help the country"
That's Labour that is!
https://x.com/Sacha_Lord/status/1993768603863372076?s=20
I did point this out earlier...will the last pub standing remember to turn the lights out. Turn over taxes and government mandated increases on hospitality businesses have become absolutely crippling.
Schools could face a 4.9 per cent drop in funding following a Government pledge to absorb special needs overspend, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
Today's Budget revealed from 2028-29, councils will no longer have to run deficits to pay for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Instead, it said ‘future funding implications’ will be managed by central government, and that plans will later be announced to deal with historic deficits.
However, in an analysis report, the OBR said the Government ‘has not set out’ how this would be paid for, at a starting cost of £6.3 billion per year. And it said that if the Department for Education (DfE) were made to absorb the cost, it could eat into the money schools get for other running costs.
The outlook for living standards has worsened – with real disposable incomes rising by a paltry 0.5 a year over the Parliament – the second worst since records began in the 1950s. And while many will focus on rising taxes, an ever greater concern for living standards is the projected rise in unemployment.
Rachel from Accounts smashed it, the economy that is.
Goodnight all 👍
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britains-great-living-standards-slowdown-has-left-typical-family-incomes-growing-by-just-140-a-year-since-2010/
The OBR note this as one of the contributing factors .
"How the chancellor just took a chunk out of your future pay"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clydn7r5pn1o
Palestinian family used ‘dubious’ connections under scheme meant for Ukrainian refugees to enter Britain" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/26/mahmood-overturns-ruling-that-granted-gazans-refuge-in-uk
Also I love the House of Commons moderation rules.
Leader of the Opposition: "You said you are proud to be the first female chancellor, but you are the worst, you cretin, you fool, you waste of skin, you total and utter useless shitstain, you incompetent shower of piss".
Speaker of the House: EVERYBODY STOP CLAPPING, NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO CLAP, PLEASE SHOW SOME DECORUM
Badenoch's response was poor, containing little of substance and was hectoring and shouty. I was listening on 5Live and turned her off before she finished because it was so unlistenable. There was no insight or context. To say that the freezing of thresholds breaks the pledge on tax rises without acknowledging that the same threshold freeze was put in place by her own government until 2028 is just rank hypocracy. I really though she would be better as LOTO than she has been, and the opposition looks a long way off looking a viable alternative government, or even realising why they had such a crushing defeat 16 months ago.
I cannot say, I stopped watching after the delightful Nus Ghani, the highlight of the budget, ticked people off for leaving too slowly.
Hospitality have again got to find a load more due to turn over tax increases. Its got bloody expensive to eat out these days already.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1993731905636671772
Social Media feeds you what they want you to see, not what is really being said.
Also the big "cut" they announced is only £150 worth on average persons bill.
Totally missing the point of why prices are rising, or part of it.
https://x.com/unitesharon/status/1983868720314233220?s=61
That they both published tissues of lies in order to get votes is why we are in the mess we are in, and why voter cynicysm is rampant. Maybe it isn't possible to be elected by telling the truth but it would be interesting to see someone try.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/october2025
Wake me up when that £2.8trn starts to come down.
It only refurbished and reopened 4 years ago.
It’s depressing how dumb some of these debates are. Tesco’s profit and ROCE is modest. Same with other supermarkets
There isn't any desire of actually changing even some of the most glaring flaws. No plan for growth. Its just now poorly managed decline for a few years, load more taxes in the year before the GE to pay for all the spending being done now, and then pitching not being Reform at the next GE.
I wonder if this deputy speaker does private work. I would pay good money for her to shout at me and tell me off. If she had a pair of spectacles she could look over, I would pay double.
https://x.com/SartorialThug/status/1993661425953493220
(I think you would do a deal to take down the classrooms and rebuild houses with the same square footage elsewhere and then subdivide the main house)
StaLLMer says
@KeirStarmer
We will build a Britain where everyone can believe in the future again.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1993922801367945685
In a post on X, the agency said: "The protection and safety of our homeland and of the American people remains our singular focus and mission."
The decision comes after two National Guard soldiers were critically injured in a shooting near the White House. The alleged gunman was an Afghan national who entered the US in September 2021.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgex957qg97o