That's weird. The revaluations happen fairly regularly (every 3 years?) so not sure why those particular pubs are having such massive increases. Something wrong with the formula?
Some of the replies though (mostly blue tick)
They really don't want White Brits to enjoy anything in life.
Think about what a pub is and provides. Communists like Rachel hate that. Pubs allow people to get together to talk share stories etc. Be a community. I have said it before but hospitality should bar politicians make them unwelcome politely of course they work against you.
Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
Then we have the Irish question. No change to the plan for norniron even though people go abroad a lot. No exemption for driving abroad. Apparently you will pay per mile abroad because you would if it was fuel duty - but you don't pay duty on fuel bought outside the UK. Being charged a tax on something not done in the UK with no tax due to the UK on any other vehicle? Will be a fun court case.
Metrics on my improv reaction video yesterday have been off the scale. I'm going to pick the details apart in another video next week. Will have less traffic but its still free money...
I’ve never understood why they don’t adopt the Swiss system or requiring every car or truck to have a windshield sticker to drive in GB. I. Sure the tourist industry would whine, while the additional cost would be (potentially) passed on by logistics providers to businesses but neither of those are bad outcomes
In CH it's only for the motorways, and is essentially an ingenious way of having a toll system where those from the countries all around who drive through only occasionally pay the same as their own nationals who use the roads every day.
Extracting money from people travelling through has been the Swiss USP since medieval times when they first robbed and later moved on to charging people for crossing the Alps.
Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
Then we have the Irish question. No change to the plan for norniron even though people go abroad a lot. No exemption for driving abroad. Apparently you will pay per mile abroad because you would if it was fuel duty - but you don't pay duty on fuel bought outside the UK. Being charged a tax on something not done in the UK with no tax due to the UK on any other vehicle? Will be a fun court case.
Metrics on my improv reaction video yesterday have been off the scale. I'm going to pick the details apart in another video next week. Will have less traffic but its still free money...
So everyone has to leave their car at home & hire one for the journey?
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
From the bits I have seen it was a better than average LOTO speech. Responding to the budget with minimal notice is one of the toughest jobs of the LOTO ( I've never really understood why it is not the Shadow Chancellor) but in this case she had the advantage of the early leaking of a lot of information and she seemed to take advantage of that to give some structure to her speech. Whether this makes any difference really depends on whether she and Stride can start to create a coherent and cohesive alternative that actually addresses the issues and then sell that to the public. As @Gallowgate pointed out this morning that is a big ask. I was distinctly underwhelmed by Stride's Conference speech in that regard but hopefully that was a first draft and things might improve.
I listened to the first ten minutes or so and to be honest it's the longest I've ever listened to Badenoch speaking. It was certainly a combative speech but I was surprised at how nasty and personal it was. Is this her usual style? It was a turn off for me but maybe Tories will like it, they seem to be more into this kind of thing. She does risk coming across as what the young people call a "pick me" - a woman who seeks male approval by denigrating other women.
Would you have liked Kemi to be less combative, given that she was dealing with a woman and all?
I just don't like personal remarks or unkindness, regardless of who is speaking to whom.
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
Thoughts and prayers for Robert Jenrick.
I fear a crisis with Jenrick's Ozempic dependency. He may become so reduced as to be unable to do his hard hitting clips outside the refugee hotels he opened.
Just scrap the spend on digital ID and put it into the Justice Dept.
I don't think that ius the right way to think. The justice system should be sorted out as a high priority in its own right.
What I am not quite sure about is how one clears the backlog quickly without needing to recruit lots more staff at all the choke points in the legal sausage machine. And ending with a reasonable balance of stuff which is still useful in the future rather than being 'wasted'. THe Nightingale Hospitals were never used - though that can't be called waste: it wasn't predictable at the time.
The clear impression I get is of years, especially under Mr Osborne, of skimping and shutting down everywhere the HO could.
For instance modernising jury selection to the legal equivalent of ERNIE* doesn't help with a shortage of criminal lawyers, so the pay rates for defence counsel need to be increased (baaad acc to the DT and DM, which is as we all know what SKS is most terrified of, surpassing all else).
But if one worked through things ... eg nissen huts for courtrooms like Nightingale Hospitals ... or simply had a go at modernising the system permanently as one went along ...
*Which does fail in the sense of seeing justice to be done in front of you, in contrast to paper lots in a bowl. But if people are happy with Premium Bonds ...?
It’s about identifying the bottlenecks point by point (as you do in manufacturing) and addressing them one by one. It takes time.
One point in case: sentencing is often delayed because pre-sentencing reports are not completed in time. Apply additional resource to solving that. It may then result in sentencing being delayed because of X or Y. Then focus on that.
The problem with many politicians (and the media/voters) is they only care about an arbitrary goal - they don’t think about continuous improvement
If all reading somewhere that this is exactly what Elon Musk does. He might only get half a day every week or two at each facility or company, so he asks the management what is the single biggest problem affecting the rate of production, and they all work together to fix it there and then.
Next week, same question, different problem. After a year, you’ve fixed the top few dozen problems affecting the company.
That's weird. The revaluations happen fairly regularly (every 3 years?) so not sure why those particular pubs are having such massive increases. Something wrong with the formula?
Rachel introduced a new surcharge on "big business" to reduce cost on "small business", but "big business" is those in buildings with a rateable value of more than £500,000 i.e. everybody but a hole in the wall operation. Supermarkets are getting particularly shafted on this, which means we are all going to pay more. But pubs are on the whole big buildings, and particularly nice ones in Cornwall (which is where the twitter account is I believe), the building is going to be worth a load more than £500k.
Thanks for clarifying that. Like the VAT threshold reduction, sounds like a massive rise in tax on a particular group.
Just scrap the spend on digital ID and put it into the Justice Dept.
I don't think that ius the right way to think. The justice system should be sorted out as a high priority in its own right.
What I am not quite sure about is how one clears the backlog quickly without needing to recruit lots more staff at all the choke points in the legal sausage machine. And ending with a reasonable balance of stuff which is still useful in the future rather than being 'wasted'. THe Nightingale Hospitals were never used - though that can't be called waste: it wasn't predictable at the time.
The clear impression I get is of years, especially under Mr Osborne, of skimping and shutting down everywhere the HO could.
For instance modernising jury selection to the legal equivalent of ERNIE* doesn't help with a shortage of criminal lawyers, so the pay rates for defence counsel need to be increased (baaad acc to the DT and DM, which is as we all know what SKS is most terrified of, surpassing all else).
But if one worked through things ... eg nissen huts for courtrooms like Nightingale Hospitals ... or simply had a go at modernising the system permanently as one went along ...
*Which does fail in the sense of seeing justice to be done in front of you, in contrast to paper lots in a bowl. But if people are happy with Premium Bonds ...?
Approx 380 people were treated in Nightingale Hospitals, at a cost of a bit less than £1 million each.
My house didn’t burn down last year. My insurance premium cost me £X for nothing!
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
From the bits I have seen it was a better than average LOTO speech. Responding to the budget with minimal notice is one of the toughest jobs of the LOTO ( I've never really understood why it is not the Shadow Chancellor) but in this case she had the advantage of the early leaking of a lot of information and she seemed to take advantage of that to give some structure to her speech. Whether this makes any difference really depends on whether she and Stride can start to create a coherent and cohesive alternative that actually addresses the issues and then sell that to the public. As @Gallowgate pointed out this morning that is a big ask. I was distinctly underwhelmed by Stride's Conference speech in that regard but hopefully that was a first draft and things might improve.
It’s not the shadow chancellor because it’s one of the few times the LOTO can be guaranteed acres of coverage
Just scrap the spend on digital ID and put it into the Justice Dept.
I don't think that ius the right way to think. The justice system should be sorted out as a high priority in its own right.
What I am not quite sure about is how one clears the backlog quickly without needing to recruit lots more staff at all the choke points in the legal sausage machine. And ending with a reasonable balance of stuff which is still useful in the future rather than being 'wasted'. THe Nightingale Hospitals were never used - though that can't be called waste: it wasn't predictable at the time.
The clear impression I get is of years, especially under Mr Osborne, of skimping and shutting down everywhere the HO could.
For instance modernising jury selection to the legal equivalent of ERNIE* doesn't help with a shortage of criminal lawyers, so the pay rates for defence counsel need to be increased (baaad acc to the DT and DM, which is as we all know what SKS is most terrified of, surpassing all else).
But if one worked through things ... eg nissen huts for courtrooms like Nightingale Hospitals ... or simply had a go at modernising the system permanently as one went along ...
*Which does fail in the sense of seeing justice to be done in front of you, in contrast to paper lots in a bowl. But if people are happy with Premium Bonds ...?
It’s about identifying the bottlenecks point by point (as you do in manufacturing) and addressing them one by one. It takes time.
One point in case: sentencing is often delayed because pre-sentencing reports are not completed in time. Apply additional resource to solving that. It may then result in sentencing being delayed because of X or Y. Then focus on that.
The problem with many politicians (and the media/voters) is they only care about an arbitrary goal - they don’t think about continuous improvement
If all reading somewhere that this is exactly what Elon Musk does. He might only get half a day every week or two at each facility or company, so he asks the management what is the single biggest problem affecting the rate of production, and they all work together to fix it there and then.
Next week, same question, different problem. After a year, you’ve fixed the top few dozen problems affecting the company.
I'd do away with Jury trials. Most European countries don't use this system. It seems very arcane. The criminal justice system clearly needs an overhaul but the place to start is with sentencing. We've been inured to these insanely long sentences. Imagining five years ahead will seem like a lifetime to a twenty year old and ten years and beyond will feel ike forever.
Scale it all down. As for Juries. Why would twelve random people with their own prejudices be better than say three who are trained and who could be regularly assessed?
Is that not a bit of a red herring? The Jury do not decide on sentences or compensation in the UK. *
(* Except iirc for damages in civil trials in Scotlandshire.)
My sympathy for reducing our use of jury trials stems largely from the experience of four weeks spent mostly hanging around in jury rooms, interspersed with small periods of time actually sitting on trials. I see my suggestions for cutting down on some of the inefficiency was shot down by Cyclefree and other great and good posters on this august site, so maybe I should can it. I'm still not sure though why you need twelve jurors in all cases. How did we alight on that number? Why wouldn't ten or six work?
From my experience you usually get three or four jurors who say nothing and just vote with the crowd.
Smaller numbers anyone?
Twelve comes from at least Henry II's day.
I'm guessing there's a religious angle...twelve apostles maybe?
In scripture, 12 represents 'everybody'. Hence twelve tribes of Israel. Seven represents perfection (which is why in the water to wine parable the water is stored in six jars, one less than seven representing the imperfection of man compared to God, and the water only washes the exterior whereas the wine 'washes' the interior).
Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
Then we have the Irish question. No change to the plan for norniron even though people go abroad a lot. No exemption for driving abroad. Apparently you will pay per mile abroad because you would if it was fuel duty - but you don't pay duty on fuel bought outside the UK. Being charged a tax on something not done in the UK with no tax due to the UK on any other vehicle? Will be a fun court case.
Metrics on my improv reaction video yesterday have been off the scale. I'm going to pick the details apart in another video next week. Will have less traffic but its still free money...
You seem to wave your hands about a lot. More noticeable when you scroll.
The day after this feels like a very old Labour budget, but lacking the old Labour hope. Three stand outs: Nothing tough on benefits class, including on that smaller group the benefits junkies; nothing much tough on pensioners (though slightly raised tax on savings). But no comfort for workers apart from much poorer ones with loads of children (a group I am on the side of!).
Borrowing: dire Growth plan: dire Vision: zero Back ending: loads - so much that it feels like a government expecting to hand over the poisoned chalice by 2028/9.
Missed: the chance (which will not come again to this government) of a truly reforming budget. Gladstone, Howe, Clarke have not been toppled.
Conclusion: Social democracy done badly, unsteady as she goes.
I think this in the region of being fair albeit perhaps a bit too much at the critical end. Agreed the adjustment is somewhat backloaded, but I'd note that is not untypical. Lower paid workers get a minimum wage increase and workers are also getting substantially upgraded rights at work separately. On growth we are getting some decent capital spending with commitment to specific projects, helped by the prior decision to shift the fiscal rule focus to current spending. The international context is also important - the UK is making the biggest fiscal consolidation effort in the G7 - going into Covid our borrowing was middle of the pack, coming out we were among the worst and if these fiscal plans pan out we should be one of the strongest performers in a few years. This is why the bond markets have reacted well. I totally agree about the absence of real reform though. I'd like to see something much bolder but we won't get that from Starmer and Reeves.
Thanks. I hope you are right. Bond markets measure narrowly. They measure whether a country in the long term can and will pay the interest, and they measure inflation as compared with other comparable countries. They don't measure whether the country is confident, happy, growing etc.
So happy bond markets are a start, but the real sign is public cheeriness, and the investor world desperate to get slices of new UK action (not quasi rent seeking) for fear of missing out on BoomUK.
Just scrap the spend on digital ID and put it into the Justice Dept.
I don't think that ius the right way to think. The justice system should be sorted out as a high priority in its own right.
What I am not quite sure about is how one clears the backlog quickly without needing to recruit lots more staff at all the choke points in the legal sausage machine. And ending with a reasonable balance of stuff which is still useful in the future rather than being 'wasted'. THe Nightingale Hospitals were never used - though that can't be called waste: it wasn't predictable at the time.
The clear impression I get is of years, especially under Mr Osborne, of skimping and shutting down everywhere the HO could.
For instance modernising jury selection to the legal equivalent of ERNIE* doesn't help with a shortage of criminal lawyers, so the pay rates for defence counsel need to be increased (baaad acc to the DT and DM, which is as we all know what SKS is most terrified of, surpassing all else).
But if one worked through things ... eg nissen huts for courtrooms like Nightingale Hospitals ... or simply had a go at modernising the system permanently as one went along ...
*Which does fail in the sense of seeing justice to be done in front of you, in contrast to paper lots in a bowl. But if people are happy with Premium Bonds ...?
It’s about identifying the bottlenecks point by point (as you do in manufacturing) and addressing them one by one. It takes time.
One point in case: sentencing is often delayed because pre-sentencing reports are not completed in time. Apply additional resource to solving that. It may then result in sentencing being delayed because of X or Y. Then focus on that.
The problem with many politicians (and the media/voters) is they only care about an arbitrary goal - they don’t think about continuous improvement
It's the same in any line of business. Many in management are only ever looking for the silver bullet that brings overnight success; few of them are interested in the attention to detail and hard slog needed to bring about slow but steady improvement one thing at a time. Not least because the benefits will happen on someone else's watch.
I see this disconnect often in IT due to the great personality gap between most managers and most techies but I'm sure it's the same in many other industries too.
I disagree. The managers I have worked with understand continuous improvement very well
As in all budgets there were good measures and bad measures. Where it is a catastophic budget is that we continue to spiral downwards with no recognition from the government that we are doing so nor a strategy to change that.
She has a plan to reduce dept as a % of GDP. Which nobody found credible. She has a plan to cut waste and complexity and thus cost which transpires to add more complexity and thus cost. Let's not get started on tax where its more tweaks, more adjustments, more reliefs. What does it mean? A big tax hike on business property (which using the pub example will be ELE for many) which puts the cost of everything up.
And the real tragedy? The Tories scream about Labour taxing and Labour failing whilst the rest of us note that these were largely their policies and they had the same failings. Or we could have Reform doing all the things Putin wants like making us beholden to gas imports.
We needed a lot more than that. Where's the vision thing? She said a guaranteed job for youth. Great - doing what? We have a serious lack of an industrial strategy which in turn leads to a huge skills shortage and thus both a lack of jobs and unfillable jobs. We need people to build homes, build machines, create our industrial base for tomorrow. A guaranteed job in an Amazon warehouse does nothing for us.
My sympathy for reducing our use of jury trials stems largely from the experience of four weeks spent mostly hanging around in jury rooms, interspersed with small periods of time actually sitting on trials. I see my suggestions for cutting down on some of the inefficiency was shot down by Cyclefree and other great and good posters on this august site, so maybe I should can it. I'm still not sure though why you need twelve jurors in all cases. How did we alight on that number? Why wouldn't ten or six work?
From my experience you usually get three or four jurors who say nothing and just vote with the crowd.
Smaller numbers anyone?
Twelve comes from at least Henry II's day.
I'm guessing there's a religious angle...twelve apostles maybe?
In scripture, 12 represents 'everybody'. Hence twelve tribes of Israel. Seven represents perfection (which is why in the water to wine parable the water is stored in six jars, one less than seven representing the imperfection of man compared to God, and the water only washes the exterior whereas the wine 'washes' the interior).
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
From the bits I have seen it was a better than average LOTO speech. Responding to the budget with minimal notice is one of the toughest jobs of the LOTO ( I've never really understood why it is not the Shadow Chancellor) but in this case she had the advantage of the early leaking of a lot of information and she seemed to take advantage of that to give some structure to her speech. Whether this makes any difference really depends on whether she and Stride can start to create a coherent and cohesive alternative that actually addresses the issues and then sell that to the public. As @Gallowgate pointed out this morning that is a big ask. I was distinctly underwhelmed by Stride's Conference speech in that regard but hopefully that was a first draft and things might improve.
I listened to the first ten minutes or so and to be honest it's the longest I've ever listened to Badenoch speaking. It was certainly a combative speech but I was surprised at how nasty and personal it was. Is this her usual style? It was a turn off for me but maybe Tories will like it, they seem to be more into this kind of thing. She does risk coming across as what the young people call a "pick me" - a woman who seeks male approval by denigrating other women.
It is not often that someone psychoanalyses themselves, so publicly. Good effort.
You have ticked off the main tropes in male reactions to women leaders - as observed in The Warrior Queens by Antonia Fraser.
Just scrap the spend on digital ID and put it into the Justice Dept.
I don't think that ius the right way to think. The justice system should be sorted out as a high priority in its own right.
What I am not quite sure about is how one clears the backlog quickly without needing to recruit lots more staff at all the choke points in the legal sausage machine. And ending with a reasonable balance of stuff which is still useful in the future rather than being 'wasted'. THe Nightingale Hospitals were never used - though that can't be called waste: it wasn't predictable at the time.
The clear impression I get is of years, especially under Mr Osborne, of skimping and shutting down everywhere the HO could.
For instance modernising jury selection to the legal equivalent of ERNIE* doesn't help with a shortage of criminal lawyers, so the pay rates for defence counsel need to be increased (baaad acc to the DT and DM, which is as we all know what SKS is most terrified of, surpassing all else).
But if one worked through things ... eg nissen huts for courtrooms like Nightingale Hospitals ... or simply had a go at modernising the system permanently as one went along ...
*Which does fail in the sense of seeing justice to be done in front of you, in contrast to paper lots in a bowl. But if people are happy with Premium Bonds ...?
It’s about identifying the bottlenecks point by point (as you do in manufacturing) and addressing them one by one. It takes time.
One point in case: sentencing is often delayed because pre-sentencing reports are not completed in time. Apply additional resource to solving that. It may then result in sentencing being delayed because of X or Y. Then focus on that.
The problem with many politicians (and the media/voters) is they only care about an arbitrary goal - they don’t think about continuous improvement
If all reading somewhere that this is exactly what Elon Musk does. He might only get half a day every week or two at each facility or company, so he asks the management what is the single biggest problem affecting the rate of production, and they all work together to fix it there and then.
Next week, same question, different problem. After a year, you’ve fixed the top few dozen problems affecting the company.
And, ta da, your AI chatbot now says you are brilliant at everything and the Holocaust didn't happen.
"Her new [property] tax – a toxic mix of two hated levies, council tax and IHT – is equivalent to detonating a time bomb under Middle England."
"Socialism is back, and the property-owning democracy is out. Labour has declared war on social mobility, on petit bourgeois values, on the consumer society and on conservative Britain."
Oh dear, where is nurse? People in £2mn houses are not 'middle England'. Perhaps he needs to widen his circle of acquaintances. I mean, I am minted and even I don't live in a £2mn house.
As in all budgets there were good measures and bad measures. Where it is a catastophic budget is that we continue to spiral downwards with no recognition from the government that we are doing so nor a strategy to change that.
She has a plan to reduce dept as a % of GDP. Which nobody found credible. She has a plan to cut waste and complexity and thus cost which transpires to add more complexity and thus cost. Let's not get started on tax where its more tweaks, more adjustments, more reliefs. What does it mean? A big tax hike on business property (which using the pub example will be ELE for many) which puts the cost of everything up.
And the real tragedy? The Tories scream about Labour taxing and Labour failing whilst the rest of us note that these were largely their policies and they had the same failings. Or we could have Reform doing all the things Putin wants like making us beholden to gas imports.
We needed a lot more than that. Where's the vision thing? She said a guaranteed job for youth. Great - doing what? We have a serious lack of an industrial strategy which in turn leads to a huge skills shortage and thus both a lack of jobs and unfillable jobs. We need people to build homes, build machines, create our industrial base for tomorrow. A guaranteed job in an Amazon warehouse does nothing for us.
The "strategy" seems to be drip drip drip of more taxes to splash on certain groups, don't touch the oldies or welfare, and pray something comes up, and if it doesn't pray to get re-elected on not being Reform. Its more evidence that Labour didn't do any real serious thinking in the lead up to the GE. All the tax rises scream of all little bits of work that the treasury have done over the years on if I need £500m how could I get, and then just cobbled them all together.
Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
Then we have the Irish question. No change to the plan for norniron even though people go abroad a lot. No exemption for driving abroad. Apparently you will pay per mile abroad because you would if it was fuel duty - but you don't pay duty on fuel bought outside the UK. Being charged a tax on something not done in the UK with no tax due to the UK on any other vehicle? Will be a fun court case.
Metrics on my improv reaction video yesterday have been off the scale. I'm going to pick the details apart in another video next week. Will have less traffic but its still free money...
I’ve never understood why they don’t adopt the Swiss system or requiring every car or truck to have a windshield sticker to drive in GB. I. Sure the tourist industry would whine, while the additional cost would be (potentially) passed on by logistics providers to businesses but neither of those are bad outcomes
In CH it's only for the motorways, and is essentially an ingenious way of having a toll system where those from the countries all around who drive through only occasionally pay the same as their own nationals who use the roads every day.
Extracting money from people travelling through has been the Swiss USP since medieval times when they first robbed and later moved on to charging people for crossing the Alps.
My sympathy for reducing our use of jury trials stems largely from the experience of four weeks spent mostly hanging around in jury rooms, interspersed with small periods of time actually sitting on trials. I see my suggestions for cutting down on some of the inefficiency was shot down by Cyclefree and other great and good posters on this august site, so maybe I should can it. I'm still not sure though why you need twelve jurors in all cases. How did we alight on that number? Why wouldn't ten or six work?
From my experience you usually get three or four jurors who say nothing and just vote with the crowd.
Smaller numbers anyone?
Twelve comes from at least Henry II's day.
I'm guessing there's a religious angle...twelve apostles maybe?
In scripture, 12 represents 'everybody'. Hence twelve tribes of Israel. Seven represents perfection (which is why in the water to wine parable the water is stored in six jars, one less than seven representing the imperfection of man compared to God, and the water only washes the exterior whereas the wine 'washes' the interior).
Here endeth the lesson.
Water to wine is not a parable but the (alleged) 'first miracle that he wrought'. (The miracle of Labour chancellors is to take the wine and turn it back into water.)
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
The day after this feels like a very old Labour budget, but lacking the old Labour hope. Three stand outs: Nothing tough on benefits class, including on that smaller group the benefits junkies; nothing much tough on pensioners (though slightly raised tax on savings). But no comfort for workers apart from much poorer ones with loads of children (a group I am on the side of!).
Borrowing: dire Growth plan: dire Vision: zero Back ending: loads - so much that it feels like a government expecting to hand over the poisoned chalice by 2028/9.
Missed: the chance (which will not come again to this government) of a truly reforming budget. Gladstone, Howe, Clarke have not been toppled.
Conclusion: Social democracy done badly, unsteady as she goes.
But one which as a 'one nation Tory' you'll be very happy to support.
I'd do away with Jury trials. Most European countries don't use this system. It seems very arcane. The criminal justice system clearly needs an overhaul but the place to start is with sentencing. We've been inured to these insanely long sentences. Imagining five years ahead will seem like a lifetime to a twenty year old and ten years and beyond will feel ike forever.
Scale it all down. As for Juries. Why would twelve random people with their own prejudices be better than say three who are trained and who could be regularly assessed?
My sympathy for reducing our use of jury trials stems largely from the experience of four weeks spent mostly hanging around in jury rooms, interspersed with small periods of time actually sitting on trials. I see my suggestions for cutting down on some of the inefficiency was shot down by Cyclefree and other great and good posters on this august site, so maybe I should can it. I'm still not sure though why you need twelve jurors in all cases. How did we alight on that number? Why wouldn't ten or six work?
From my experience you usually get three or four jurors who say nothing and just vote with the crowd.
Smaller numbers anyone?
Twelve comes from at least Henry II's day.
I'm guessing there's a religious angle...twelve apostles maybe?
AI says it's the fault of the Welsh:
The practice likely originated with the Welsh King Morgan of Gla-Morgan, who, in the 8th century, based the jury size on the 12 Apostles of Jesus.
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
From the bits I have seen it was a better than average LOTO speech. Responding to the budget with minimal notice is one of the toughest jobs of the LOTO ( I've never really understood why it is not the Shadow Chancellor) but in this case she had the advantage of the early leaking of a lot of information and she seemed to take advantage of that to give some structure to her speech. Whether this makes any difference really depends on whether she and Stride can start to create a coherent and cohesive alternative that actually addresses the issues and then sell that to the public. As @Gallowgate pointed out this morning that is a big ask. I was distinctly underwhelmed by Stride's Conference speech in that regard but hopefully that was a first draft and things might improve.
I listened to the first ten minutes or so and to be honest it's the longest I've ever listened to Badenoch speaking. It was certainly a combative speech but I was surprised at how nasty and personal it was. Is this her usual style? It was a turn off for me but maybe Tories will like it, they seem to be more into this kind of thing. She does risk coming across as what the young people call a "pick me" - a woman who seeks male approval by denigrating other women.
It is not often that someone psychoanalyses themselves, so publicly. Good effort.
You have ticked off the main tropes in male reactions to women leaders - as observed in The Warrior Queens by Antonia Fraser.
Er OK, thanks! I don't like nasty male leaders either, is that allowed?
That's weird. The revaluations happen fairly regularly (every 3 years?) so not sure why those particular pubs are having such massive increases. Something wrong with the formula?
Rachel introduced a new surcharge on "big business" to reduce cost on "small business", but "big business" is those in buildings with a rateable value of more than £500,000 i.e. everybody but a hole in the wall operation. Supermarkets are getting particularly shafted on this, which means we are all going to pay more. But pubs are on the whole big buildings, and particularly nice ones in Cornwall (which is where the twitter account is I believe), the building is going to be worth a load more than £500k.
So, you're saying this administration doesn't understand the first thing about business?
The day after this feels like a very old Labour budget, but lacking the old Labour hope. Three stand outs: Nothing tough on benefits class, including on that smaller group the benefits junkies; nothing much tough on pensioners (though slightly raised tax on savings). But no comfort for workers apart from much poorer ones with loads of children (a group I am on the side of!).
Borrowing: dire Growth plan: dire Vision: zero Back ending: loads - so much that it feels like a government expecting to hand over the poisoned chalice by 2028/9.
Missed: the chance (which will not come again to this government) of a truly reforming budget. Gladstone, Howe, Clarke have not been toppled.
Conclusion: Social democracy done badly, unsteady as she goes.
But one which as a 'one nation Tory' you'll be very happy to support.
Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
Then we have the Irish question. No change to the plan for norniron even though people go abroad a lot. No exemption for driving abroad. Apparently you will pay per mile abroad because you would if it was fuel duty - but you don't pay duty on fuel bought outside the UK. Being charged a tax on something not done in the UK with no tax due to the UK on any other vehicle? Will be a fun court case.
Metrics on my improv reaction video yesterday have been off the scale. I'm going to pick the details apart in another video next week. Will have less traffic but its still free money...
I’ve never understood why they don’t adopt the Swiss system or requiring every car or truck to have a windshield sticker to drive in GB. I. Sure the tourist industry would whine, while the additional cost would be (potentially) passed on by logistics providers to businesses but neither of those are bad outcomes
In CH it's only for the motorways, and is essentially an ingenious way of having a toll system where those from the countries all around who drive through only occasionally pay the same as their own nationals who use the roads every day.
Extracting money from people travelling through has been the Swiss USP since medieval times when they first robbed and later moved on to charging people for crossing the Alps.
In fact Switzerland was created in 1291 because someone had put a bridge across the Schöllenen Gorge thus enabling traffic through the Gotthard Pass and they could now charge tolls.
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
Unless it's an immigration case, where that may be reversed.
Just scrap the spend on digital ID and put it into the Justice Dept.
I don't think that ius the right way to think. The justice system should be sorted out as a high priority in its own right.
What I am not quite sure about is how one clears the backlog quickly without needing to recruit lots more staff at all the choke points in the legal sausage machine. And ending with a reasonable balance of stuff which is still useful in the future rather than being 'wasted'. THe Nightingale Hospitals were never used - though that can't be called waste: it wasn't predictable at the time.
The clear impression I get is of years, especially under Mr Osborne, of skimping and shutting down everywhere the HO could.
For instance modernising jury selection to the legal equivalent of ERNIE* doesn't help with a shortage of criminal lawyers, so the pay rates for defence counsel need to be increased (baaad acc to the DT and DM, which is as we all know what SKS is most terrified of, surpassing all else).
But if one worked through things ... eg nissen huts for courtrooms like Nightingale Hospitals ... or simply had a go at modernising the system permanently as one went along ...
*Which does fail in the sense of seeing justice to be done in front of you, in contrast to paper lots in a bowl. But if people are happy with Premium Bonds ...?
It’s about identifying the bottlenecks point by point (as you do in manufacturing) and addressing them one by one. It takes time.
One point in case: sentencing is often delayed because pre-sentencing reports are not completed in time. Apply additional resource to solving that. It may then result in sentencing being delayed because of X or Y. Then focus on that.
The problem with many politicians (and the media/voters) is they only care about an arbitrary goal - they don’t think about continuous improvement
If all reading somewhere that this is exactly what Elon Musk does. He might only get half a day every week or two at each facility or company, so he asks the management what is the single biggest problem affecting the rate of production, and they all work together to fix it there and then.
Next week, same question, different problem. After a year, you’ve fixed the top few dozen problems affecting the company.
That’s just performative bollocks.
It takes time to iron out bottlenecks (my main experience of seeing this is in manufacturing where I saw a biological manufacturing facility in Israel double its capacity over 5 years without expanding its footprint)
That's weird. The revaluations happen fairly regularly (every 3 years?) so not sure why those particular pubs are having such massive increases. Something wrong with the formula?
Rachel introduced a new surcharge on "big business" to reduce cost on "small business", but "big business" is those in buildings with a rateable value of more than £500,000 i.e. everybody but a hole in the wall operation. Supermarkets are getting particularly shafted on this, which means we are all going to pay more. But pubs are on the whole big buildings, and particularly nice ones in Cornwall (which is where the twitter account is I believe), the building is going to be worth a load more than £500k.
So, you're saying this administration doesn't understand the first thing about business?
Interestingly more Tory, Labour and LD voters back scrapping jury trials than not though with Tory voters most opposed to scrapping jury trials in the Crown Court for cases with a maximum sentence below five years. Rees Mogg is particularly in favour of keeping jury trials.
After a jury acquitted those who damaged the Colston statue, acquitted a Labour councillor who made a hate speech comment and a jury acquitted a police escort rider for the Duchess of Edinburgh of careless driving causing death after he killed an elderly pedestrian over the speed limit it is not surprising some voters back the government proposed changes when a judge likely would have convicted them on the law. Especially for criminal damage and some driving offences
So almost none of the leaked and trailed measures actually went into the budget.
Everyone who was expecting an ‘exit tax’ and planning accordingly, will now carry on doing so in the expectation that will now happen next year instead.
Yeah, I saw at work only 8% of the Telegraph's 'exclusives' made it into the budget.
But is that because the Telegraph made it up, or because it was leaked as a flag flying exercise?
Why would a Labour Govt leak to the Telegraph?
I think 'even' in the case of the Telegraph the journalist can't just make a story like that up from whole cloth; someone will have needed to give them this information for it to be published in anything other than a hyperbolic opinion column.
But the source does not always need to be political; it could have been a civil servant rather than a politician. Given the apparent relations between ministers (or at least Number 10) and civil servants at the moment, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that at least one civil servant is very keen to leak information that makes the government look bad. I suspect that was the case in the last parliament as well.
I reckon - judges - more likely to find people guilty. The Colston statue referenced by Sandpit is a good example - I reckon Lucy Connolly had she pled not guilty would have been found guilty by a judge but not a jury on the other side of the culture wars.
Now sentencing - juries would 100% give longer terms than a judge in most cases. But that's not changing, it's always been the judge who decides that bit.
That's weird. The revaluations happen fairly regularly (every 3 years?) so not sure why those particular pubs are having such massive increases. Something wrong with the formula?
Rachel introduced a new surcharge on "big business" to reduce cost on "small business", but "big business" is those in buildings with a rateable value of more than £500,000 i.e. everybody but a hole in the wall operation. Supermarkets are getting particularly shafted on this, which means we are all going to pay more. But pubs are on the whole big buildings, and particularly nice ones in Cornwall (which is where the twitter account is I believe), the building is going to be worth a load more than £500k.
So, you're saying this administration doesn't understand the first thing about business?
Say it isn't so!
Is there anyone in the Cabinet who’s worked in management at any business?
Most of them appear to have backgrounds in public sector, NGO, unions etc, none of them have ever needed to attract customers and make a profit.
That's weird. The revaluations happen fairly regularly (every 3 years?) so not sure why those particular pubs are having such massive increases. Something wrong with the formula?
Rachel introduced a new surcharge on "big business" to reduce cost on "small business", but "big business" is those in buildings with a rateable value of more than £500,000 i.e. everybody but a hole in the wall operation. Supermarkets are getting particularly shafted on this, which means we are all going to pay more. But pubs are on the whole big buildings, and particularly nice ones in Cornwall (which is where the twitter account is I believe), the building is going to be worth a load more than £500k.
So, you're saying this administration doesn't understand the first thing about business?
Say it isn't so!
Is there anyone in the Cabinet who’s worked in management at any business?
Most of them appear to have backgrounds in public sector, NGO, unions etc, none of them have ever needed to attract customers and make a profit.
"Her new [property] tax – a toxic mix of two hated levies, council tax and IHT – is equivalent to detonating a time bomb under Middle England."
"Socialism is back, and the property-owning democracy is out. Labour has declared war on social mobility, on petit bourgeois values, on the consumer society and on conservative Britain."
Oh dear, where is nurse? People in £2mn houses are not 'middle England'. Perhaps he needs to widen his circle of acquaintances. I mean, I am minted and even I don't live in a £2mn house.
And even if you did, given that you are, in your words, 'minted', you wouldn't mind paying more council tax for the common good, would you?
Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
Then we have the Irish question. No change to the plan for norniron even though people go abroad a lot. No exemption for driving abroad. Apparently you will pay per mile abroad because you would if it was fuel duty - but you don't pay duty on fuel bought outside the UK. Being charged a tax on something not done in the UK with no tax due to the UK on any other vehicle? Will be a fun court case.
Metrics on my improv reaction video yesterday have been off the scale. I'm going to pick the details apart in another video next week. Will have less traffic but its still free money...
I’ve never understood why they don’t adopt the Swiss system or requiring every car or truck to have a windshield sticker to drive in GB. I. Sure the tourist industry would whine, while the additional cost would be (potentially) passed on by logistics providers to businesses but neither of those are bad outcomes
In CH it's only for the motorways, and is essentially an ingenious way of having a toll system where those from the countries all around who drive through only occasionally pay the same as their own nationals who use the roads every day.
Extracting money from people travelling through has been the Swiss USP since medieval times when they first robbed and later moved on to charging people for crossing the Alps.
In fact Switzerland was created in 1291 because someone had put a bridge across the Schöllenen Gorge thus enabling traffic through the Gotthard Pass and they could now charge tolls.
Ironically that (the tunnel beneath) is now the principal through-route that has no toll
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
Interestingly more Tory, Labour and LD voters back scrapping jury trials than not though with Tory voters most opposed to scrapping jury trials in the Crown Court for cases with a maximum sentence below five years. Rees Mogg is particularly in favour of keeping jury trials.
After a jury acquitted those who damaged the Colston statue, acquitted a Labour councillor who made a hate speech comment and a jury acquitted a police escort rider for the Duchess of Edinburgh of careless driving causing death after he killed an elderly pedestrian over the speed limit it is not surprising some voters back the government proposed changes when a judge likely would have convicted them on the law. Especially for criminal damage and some driving offences
It's the Reform voters' figures that stand out. Perhaps less surprising if you reframe the issue as a matter of tradition.
"She has a plan to reduce dept as a % of GDP. Which nobody found credible." Her problem with credibility is that she relies on the denominator in the fraction to do all the work – hence her harping on about 'growth' – but she has no control over that, whereas what she could control is the numerator. But that gives rise to political difficulties so she backed off. Who would bet against the debt to GDP ratio rising over the span of her watch?
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
I read a book by him once - 'Little Cyclone', about his escape through occupied France; essentially the storyline of Secret Army. It was a good story, but writing wasn't his forte.
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
THere's always his own writings about his escape from Colditz and his work in MI9 - They have hteir Exits and Saturday at MI9 but they prob don't cover the political era.
Patrick Bishop's biog I seem to remember reading - it was acceptable enough but I didn't feel the need to keep it. There is another biog by Routledge which I have not read.
Thanks.
I recently fell down a social media rabbit hole and some Faragist type (very anti Ukraine/NATO) said that according to that prize idiot Enoch Powell, Airey Neave was assassinated by the Yanks to ensure a united Ireland would join NATO.
I mean why they didn't assassinate Roy Mason is bugging me, what was so special about Lt. Col Neave?
Neave was prominent in wanting to take a more aggressive, military approach to the IRA, beliving that he could 'win the war' by flooding the province with troops including the special forces. That's why he became a target.
edit/ Given his various wartime experiences with underground movements, you could argue that his political view on that was surprisingly naive?
What he was advocating was actually done.
The opposing view was not to use active intelligence operations against the paramilitaries, hunker down in fortified bases and let the Men Of Violence get on with it.
Instead we had the three tracks -
1) intelligence infiltrated the paramilitaries until they were franchises of HMG. Then they went for the peace process. Funny that. 2) active patrolling by the army and RUC to keep a lid on things and prevent the paramilitaries taking over daily life 3) the political process.
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
Unless it's an immigration case, where that may be reversed.
That's quite funny, CR, but it's a serious question and I should think there must have been some research done in this area, and also on the optimum size for a jury, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
From my now much overworked sample of four I can say that in two of the cases the judge would have found differently. In one of them, the guy was obviously guilty but the judge didn't blame the jury for getting it wrong. He blamed the prosecution for presenting the case so poorly. (It was the poor sod's first case and he got in a right mess.) In the other I think everyone present was surprised when we returned a guilty verdict. I remain convinced to this day that we got it right.
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
From the bits I have seen it was a better than average LOTO speech. Responding to the budget with minimal notice is one of the toughest jobs of the LOTO ( I've never really understood why it is not the Shadow Chancellor) but in this case she had the advantage of the early leaking of a lot of information and she seemed to take advantage of that to give some structure to her speech. Whether this makes any difference really depends on whether she and Stride can start to create a coherent and cohesive alternative that actually addresses the issues and then sell that to the public. As @Gallowgate pointed out this morning that is a big ask. I was distinctly underwhelmed by Stride's Conference speech in that regard but hopefully that was a first draft and things might improve.
I listened to the first ten minutes or so and to be honest it's the longest I've ever listened to Badenoch speaking. It was certainly a combative speech but I was surprised at how nasty and personal it was. Is this her usual style? It was a turn off for me but maybe Tories will like it, they seem to be more into this kind of thing. She does risk coming across as what the young people call a "pick me" - a woman who seeks male approval by denigrating other women.
Would you have liked Kemi to be less combative, given that she was dealing with a woman and all?
I just don't like personal remarks or unkindness, regardless of who is speaking to whom.
I was surprised so many on here were excited by Kemi yesterday. They had a genuinely funny leader in Hague who had the whole House in stitches but it didn't make voters like him any more. If she'd had a great profound line -the holy grail of advertisers -which could carry beyond yesterday then it might have had an impact. I suppose it might make her own side like her a bit more if they think she did well
I think juries have an important role in democratizing justice, particularly important in controversial cases. For example people would accept a jury allowing someone accused of child molestation to go free on lack of evidence, where they wouldn't give a judge the same benefit of the doubt. The same when a jury convicts someone the public is sympathetic towards
Heh. On the BBC, the Chancellor states that, as I assumed, no one has done any thinking on how an EV mileage charge will work. It’s for 2028 so they will consult and it won’t happen. Another measure purely for the spreadsheet. There’s a lot of those…
I've read the document. Its JOYOUS. Fill in a webform to say how many miles. Pay per month if you like. A mandatory annual inspection at a VOSA approved facility paid for by the government. Balancing payment or credits. Lots and lots and lots of bureaucracy. They're trying to say "ah we'll use the existing framework" to make it cheaper, but it won't be.
Then we have the Irish question. No change to the plan for norniron even though people go abroad a lot. No exemption for driving abroad. Apparently you will pay per mile abroad because you would if it was fuel duty - but you don't pay duty on fuel bought outside the UK. Being charged a tax on something not done in the UK with no tax due to the UK on any other vehicle? Will be a fun court case.
Metrics on my improv reaction video yesterday have been off the scale. I'm going to pick the details apart in another video next week. Will have less traffic but its still free money...
You seem to wave your hands about a lot. More noticeable when you scroll.
Was an unusal video. Release slot is 4pm. Decided at 2pm to do a reaction video. I'd been scribbling notes on the budget for my other channel's recording, so grabbed those notes, did a quick "say this" scribble and went straight at it. Hand waving = thinking. Didn't have time for lots of edits hence zero graphics / inserts in this one.
Allistair Heath has been chomping on a word salad for breakfast. Getting ready for the Daily Mail takeover, perhaps.
Yet it is Labour’s taboo-breaking tax on expensive homes that is the most dangerous of all: it is tantamount to a quasi-authoritarian reopening of settled property rights and fundamentally reorders the relationship between citizen and state. Her scheme begins to abolish freehold property, turning yeoman-owners into leaseholders, with politicians the ultimate landlords. Her “high value council tax surcharge” is best understood as a rent, to be paid to Reeves for the right to stay in one’s own home. Labour hates ordinary landlords, but is desperate to turn the state into the most exploitative of rent collectors. It’s sub-Marxist nonsense, a form of legalised theft. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/26/britain-now-socialist-country-what-reeves-budget-means/
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
I'll engage - I saw them in 1976, with Little Feat, supporting The Who, at Charlton football ground - at the time, the loudest concert ever, apparently. They were fun. I still haven't recovered, as we approach the fiftieth anniversary. PS - just checked. The ticket was £4!
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
From the bits I have seen it was a better than average LOTO speech. Responding to the budget with minimal notice is one of the toughest jobs of the LOTO ( I've never really understood why it is not the Shadow Chancellor) but in this case she had the advantage of the early leaking of a lot of information and she seemed to take advantage of that to give some structure to her speech. Whether this makes any difference really depends on whether she and Stride can start to create a coherent and cohesive alternative that actually addresses the issues and then sell that to the public. As @Gallowgate pointed out this morning that is a big ask. I was distinctly underwhelmed by Stride's Conference speech in that regard but hopefully that was a first draft and things might improve.
I listened to the first ten minutes or so and to be honest it's the longest I've ever listened to Badenoch speaking. It was certainly a combative speech but I was surprised at how nasty and personal it was. Is this her usual style? It was a turn off for me but maybe Tories will like it, they seem to be more into this kind of thing. She does risk coming across as what the young people call a "pick me" - a woman who seeks male approval by denigrating other women.
Would you have liked Kemi to be less combative, given that she was dealing with a woman and all?
I just don't like personal remarks or unkindness, regardless of who is speaking to whom.
I was surprised so many on here were excited by Kemi yesterday. They had a genuinely funny leader in Hague who had the whole House in stitches but it didn't make voters like him any more. If she'd had a great profound line -the holy grail of advertisers -which could carry beyond yesterday then it might have had an impact. I suppose it might make her own side like her a bit more if they think she did well
The gratuitous insults might have made those behind her feel a bit better, but with zero political impact, as you say. The most convincing part of the speech was the closing section with its attempt to map out and pitch some sort of future prospectus - unsupported as yet by any detail or answers to any of the hard questions, naturally.
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
I'll engage - I saw them in 1976, with Little Feat, supporting The Who, at Charlton football ground - at the time, the loudest concert ever, apparently. They were fun. I still haven't recovered, as we approach the fiftieth anniversary.
Alex Harvey Band and Lowell George era Little Feat. That is a cracking support lineup
I'd do away with Jury trials. Most European countries don't use this system. It seems very arcane. The criminal justice system clearly needs an overhaul but the place to start is with sentencing. We've been inured to these insanely long sentences. Imagining five years ahead will seem like a lifetime to a twenty year old and ten years and beyond will feel ike forever.
Scale it all down. As for Juries. Why would twelve random people with their own prejudices be better than say three who are trained and who could be regularly assessed?
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
I read a book by him once - 'Little Cyclone', about his escape through occupied France; essentially the storyline of Secret Army. It was a good story, but writing wasn't his forte.
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
THere's always his own writings about his escape from Colditz and his work in MI9 - They have hteir Exits and Saturday at MI9 but they prob don't cover the political era.
Patrick Bishop's biog I seem to remember reading - it was acceptable enough but I didn't feel the need to keep it. There is another biog by Routledge which I have not read.
Thanks.
I recently fell down a social media rabbit hole and some Faragist type (very anti Ukraine/NATO) said that according to that prize idiot Enoch Powell, Airey Neave was assassinated by the Yanks to ensure a united Ireland would join NATO.
I mean why they didn't assassinate Roy Mason is bugging me, what was so special about Lt. Col Neave?
Neave was prominent in wanting to take a more aggressive, military approach to the IRA, beliving that he could 'win the war' by flooding the province with troops including the special forces. That's why he became a target.
edit/ Given his various wartime experiences with underground movements, you could argue that his political view on that was surprisingly naive?
What he was advocating was actually done.
The opposing view was not to use active intelligence operations against the paramilitaries, hunker down in fortified bases and let the Men Of Violence get on with it.
Instead we had the three tracks -
1) intelligence infiltrated the paramilitaries until they were franchises of HMG. Then they went for the peace process. Funny that. 2) active patrolling by the army and RUC to keep a lid on things and prevent the paramilitaries taking over daily life 3) the political process.
The kind of approach that Max Boot shows pays off against insurgents.
People will make a stand against terrorists, but only if they think the authorities will defend them, which is why 2) is so important. The key to defeating insurgents is for the government to visibly demonstrate its authority.
"Her new [property] tax – a toxic mix of two hated levies, council tax and IHT – is equivalent to detonating a time bomb under Middle England."
"Socialism is back, and the property-owning democracy is out. Labour has declared war on social mobility, on petit bourgeois values, on the consumer society and on conservative Britain."
Oh dear, where is nurse? People in £2mn houses are not 'middle England'. Perhaps he needs to widen his circle of acquaintances. I mean, I am minted and even I don't live in a £2mn house.
And even if you did, given that you are, in your words, 'minted', you wouldn't mind paying more council tax for the common good, would you?
I'd do away with Jury trials. Most European countries don't use this system. It seems very arcane. The criminal justice system clearly needs an overhaul but the place to start is with sentencing. We've been inured to these insanely long sentences. Imagining five years ahead will seem like a lifetime to a twenty year old and ten years and beyond will feel ike forever.
Scale it all down. As for Juries. Why would twelve random people with their own prejudices be better than say three who are trained and who could be regularly assessed?
Allistair Heath has been chomping on a word salad for breakfast. Getting ready for the Daily Mail takeover, perhaps.
Yet it is Labour’s taboo-breaking tax on expensive homes that is the most dangerous of all: it is tantamount to a quasi-authoritarian reopening of settled property rights and fundamentally reorders the relationship between citizen and state. Her scheme begins to abolish freehold property, turning yeoman-owners into leaseholders, with politicians the ultimate landlords. Her “high value council tax surcharge” is best understood as a rent, to be paid to Reeves for the right to stay in one’s own home. Labour hates ordinary landlords, but is desperate to turn the state into the most exploitative of rent collectors. It’s sub-Marxist nonsense, a form of legalised theft. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/26/britain-now-socialist-country-what-reeves-budget-means/
So, there's these things called "taxes" Allistair...
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
I'll engage - I saw them in 1976, with Little Feat, supporting The Who, at Charlton football ground - at the time, the loudest concert ever, apparently. They were fun. I still haven't recovered, as we approach the fiftieth anniversary.
Alex Harvey Band and Lowell George era Little Feat. That is a cracking support lineup
Oh, and The Outlaws, who were excellent. All flooding back now.
"Her new [property] tax – a toxic mix of two hated levies, council tax and IHT – is equivalent to detonating a time bomb under Middle England."
"Socialism is back, and the property-owning democracy is out. Labour has declared war on social mobility, on petit bourgeois values, on the consumer society and on conservative Britain."
Why does PB link to the Telegraph more than all other papers put together? Is it the cheap subscriptions or has the site moved sharply to the right? At least no one (or no one who wants to be taken seriously) links to Guido anymore
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
I'll engage - I saw them in 1976, with Little Feat, supporting The Who, at Charlton football ground - at the time, the loudest concert ever, apparently. They were fun. I still haven't recovered, as we approach the fiftieth anniversary. PS - just checked. The ticket was £4!
£4 must have been quite pricey for live music in 1976. I remember seeing Oasis for £5 in 1993 (this was at the Leadmill in Sheffield, rather than the stadium gigs they moved on to, but still).
I'd have loved to have seen SAHB. I've only ever seen them on telly, of course (what with Alex Harvey having died when I was 7) - but I love the amount of aggression which he manages to get into the act of standing still in a slightly daft big stripey t-shirt.
Allistair Heath has been chomping on a word salad for breakfast. Getting ready for the Daily Mail takeover, perhaps.
Yet it is Labour’s taboo-breaking tax on expensive homes that is the most dangerous of all: it is tantamount to a quasi-authoritarian reopening of settled property rights and fundamentally reorders the relationship between citizen and state. Her scheme begins to abolish freehold property, turning yeoman-owners into leaseholders, with politicians the ultimate landlords. Her “high value council tax surcharge” is best understood as a rent, to be paid to Reeves for the right to stay in one’s own home. Labour hates ordinary landlords, but is desperate to turn the state into the most exploitative of rent collectors. It’s sub-Marxist nonsense, a form of legalised theft. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/26/britain-now-socialist-country-what-reeves-budget-means/
So, there's these things called "taxes" Allistair...
111,000 people claimed asylum in year ending September 2025 though, which is large and half of those were illegal small boats.
The figure is June 2024 to June 2025 so essentially all under Labour . Of course they continued with those Tory measures but the No 10 media operation should really be going all out to take credit for that huge drop.
Allistair Heath has been chomping on a word salad for breakfast. Getting ready for the Daily Mail takeover, perhaps.
Yet it is Labour’s taboo-breaking tax on expensive homes that is the most dangerous of all: it is tantamount to a quasi-authoritarian reopening of settled property rights and fundamentally reorders the relationship between citizen and state. Her scheme begins to abolish freehold property, turning yeoman-owners into leaseholders, with politicians the ultimate landlords. Her “high value council tax surcharge” is best understood as a rent, to be paid to Reeves for the right to stay in one’s own home. Labour hates ordinary landlords, but is desperate to turn the state into the most exploitative of rent collectors. It’s sub-Marxist nonsense, a form of legalised theft. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/26/britain-now-socialist-country-what-reeves-budget-means/
Magnificent but nonsense. What the CoE has proposed is in effect an adjustment to the progress of what is currently a highly regressive tax, SFAICS neither more nor less. She should have dressed it up less as a new special tax and more as a much needed tinkering with a well known system and at the same time ordered a 2025/6 revaluation for everyone, it being 34 years since 1991.
That first chart is bloody depressing. What the hell have we become as a country?
People really don't want to do jury service.
Yep, it's boring and aggravating. Unless you have a public-spirited employer you'll be out of pocket, you stand a small chance of getting a long case. It's a lot of "waiting to do nothing" and being to come back tomorrow
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
I read a book by him once - 'Little Cyclone', about his escape through occupied France; essentially the storyline of Secret Army. It was a good story, but writing wasn't his forte.
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
THere's always his own writings about his escape from Colditz and his work in MI9 - They have hteir Exits and Saturday at MI9 but they prob don't cover the political era.
Patrick Bishop's biog I seem to remember reading - it was acceptable enough but I didn't feel the need to keep it. There is another biog by Routledge which I have not read.
Thanks.
I recently fell down a social media rabbit hole and some Faragist type (very anti Ukraine/NATO) said that according to that prize idiot Enoch Powell, Airey Neave was assassinated by the Yanks to ensure a united Ireland would join NATO.
I mean why they didn't assassinate Roy Mason is bugging me, what was so special about Lt. Col Neave?
Neave was prominent in wanting to take a more aggressive, military approach to the IRA, beliving that he could 'win the war' by flooding the province with troops including the special forces. That's why he became a target.
edit/ Given his various wartime experiences with underground movements, you could argue that his political view on that was surprisingly naive?
What he was advocating was actually done.
The opposing view was not to use active intelligence operations against the paramilitaries, hunker down in fortified bases and let the Men Of Violence get on with it.
Instead we had the three tracks -
1) intelligence infiltrated the paramilitaries until they were franchises of HMG. Then they went for the peace process. Funny that. 2) active patrolling by the army and RUC to keep a lid on things and prevent the paramilitaries taking over daily life 3) the political process.
The kind of approach that Max Boot shows pays off against insurgents.
People will make a stand against terrorists, but only if they think the authorities will defend them, which is why 2) is so important. The key to defeating insurgents is for the government to visibly demonstrate its authority.
The key was starting to deal with the underlying grievances so that the population was less inclined to support and shelter their paramilitaries, coupled with a political process to offer those powerful within the paramilitary movements an alternative future as they approached middle age.
That's weird. The revaluations happen fairly regularly (every 3 years?) so not sure why those particular pubs are having such massive increases. Something wrong with the formula?
Rachel introduced a new surcharge on "big business" to reduce cost on "small business", but "big business" is those in buildings with a rateable value of more than £500,000 i.e. everybody but a hole in the wall operation. Supermarkets are getting particularly shafted on this, which means we are all going to pay more. But pubs are on the whole big buildings, and particularly nice ones in Cornwall (which is where the twitter account is I believe), the building is going to be worth a load more than £500k.
So, you're saying this administration doesn't understand the first thing about business?
Say it isn't so!
Is there anyone in the Cabinet who’s worked in management at any business?
Most of them appear to have backgrounds in public sector, NGO, unions etc, none of them have ever needed to attract customers and make a profit.
It depends exactly what you mean, but Steve Reed and Emma Reynolds.
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
What they’re trying to do, as many of us suggested beforehand, is to try and drag a couple of hundred thousand people kicking and screaming into the £100k 60% tax bracket.
Except that won’t happen, because people are mostly rational actors. What’s more likely to happen, is the affected people start taking unpaid leave to keep their salary below £100k. Doubly so if they have childcare.
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
Another Scottish great, Finn Russell, also an apprenticed stonemason.
I worked beside Alistair (Zal) Cleminson in the early noughties, lovely guy who taught me the essentials of Excel. No, he didn't wear the make up to work.
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
Keyboardist Rick Wakeman is also in the Masons, I recall.
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
I read a book by him once - 'Little Cyclone', about his escape through occupied France; essentially the storyline of Secret Army. It was a good story, but writing wasn't his forte.
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
THere's always his own writings about his escape from Colditz and his work in MI9 - They have hteir Exits and Saturday at MI9 but they prob don't cover the political era.
Patrick Bishop's biog I seem to remember reading - it was acceptable enough but I didn't feel the need to keep it. There is another biog by Routledge which I have not read.
Thanks.
I recently fell down a social media rabbit hole and some Faragist type (very anti Ukraine/NATO) said that according to that prize idiot Enoch Powell, Airey Neave was assassinated by the Yanks to ensure a united Ireland would join NATO.
I mean why they didn't assassinate Roy Mason is bugging me, what was so special about Lt. Col Neave?
Neave was prominent in wanting to take a more aggressive, military approach to the IRA, beliving that he could 'win the war' by flooding the province with troops including the special forces. That's why he became a target.
edit/ Given his various wartime experiences with underground movements, you could argue that his political view on that was surprisingly naive?
What he was advocating was actually done.
The opposing view was not to use active intelligence operations against the paramilitaries, hunker down in fortified bases and let the Men Of Violence get on with it.
Instead we had the three tracks -
1) intelligence infiltrated the paramilitaries until they were franchises of HMG. Then they went for the peace process. Funny that. 2) active patrolling by the army and RUC to keep a lid on things and prevent the paramilitaries taking over daily life 3) the political process.
The kind of approach that Max Boot shows pays off against insurgents.
People will make a stand against terrorists, but only if they think the authorities will defend them, which is why 2) is so important. The key to defeating insurgents is for the government to visibly demonstrate its authority.
Which was ANs point.
There was an excellent BBC documentary about day to day life in the border areas in the 80s - can’t find it…
One part dealt with a local quarry. Since explosives would be a magnet for the PIRA, they were stored on an army base and helicoptered in for each blast the quarry did.
The army commander for the area explained it was about the State taking on the additional burden (as much as possible), rather than just closing the quarry and collapsing a piece of the social economy.
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
What they’re trying to do, as many of us suggested beforehand, is to try and drag a couple of hundred thousand people kicking and screaming into the £100k 60% tax bracket.
Except that won’t happen, because people are mostly rational actors. What’s more likely to happen, is the affected people start taking unpaid leave to keep their salary below £100k. Doubly so if they have childcare.
Some people work regardless of tax. The Beatles didn't stop because they were paying 98%, although they did write a song about it.
I'd do away with Jury trials. Most European countries don't use this system. It seems very arcane. The criminal justice system clearly needs an overhaul but the place to start is with sentencing. We've been inured to these insanely long sentences. Imagining five years ahead will seem like a lifetime to a twenty year old and ten years and beyond will feel ike forever.
Scale it all down. As for Juries. Why would twelve random people with their own prejudices be better than say three who are trained and who could be regularly assessed?
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
What they’re trying to do, as many of us suggested beforehand, is to try and drag a couple of hundred thousand people kicking and screaming into the £100k 60% tax bracket.
Except that won’t happen, because people are mostly rational actors. What’s more likely to happen, is the affected people start taking unpaid leave to keep their salary below £100k. Doubly so if they have childcare.
Some people work regardless of tax. The Beatles didn't stop because they were paying 98%, although they did write a song about it.
They first set up a company to handle their income, which was novel at the time, and then they moved to the US.
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
What they’re trying to do, as many of us suggested beforehand, is to try and drag a couple of hundred thousand people kicking and screaming into the £100k 60% tax bracket.
Except that won’t happen, because people are mostly rational actors. What’s more likely to happen, is the affected people start taking unpaid leave to keep their salary below £100k. Doubly so if they have childcare.
Some people work regardless of tax. The Beatles didn't stop because they were paying 98%, although they did write a song about it.
Most people, however, work because people pay them to do so, even if they quite enjoy their jobs. The Beatles are really at one end of the scale in having jobs which are fun. If you suggest to them they do 10% more work for 5% more pay, they will decline.
"Her new [property] tax – a toxic mix of two hated levies, council tax and IHT – is equivalent to detonating a time bomb under Middle England."
"Socialism is back, and the property-owning democracy is out. Labour has declared war on social mobility, on petit bourgeois values, on the consumer society and on conservative Britain."
Why does PB link to the Telegraph more than all other papers put together? Is it the cheap subscriptions or has the site moved sharply to the right? At least no one (or no one who wants to be taken seriously) links to Guido anymore
Because that's where most of the government's leaks seem to go to.
111,000 people claimed asylum in year ending September 2025 though, which is large and half of those were illegal small boats.
The figure is June 2024 to June 2025 so essentially all under Labour . Of course they continued with those Tory measures but the No 10 media operation should really be going all out to take credit for that huge drop.
I'm sure they will but it's a function of Tory measures, not theirs.
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
What they’re trying to do, as many of us suggested beforehand, is to try and drag a couple of hundred thousand people kicking and screaming into the £100k 60% tax bracket.
Except that won’t happen, because people are mostly rational actors. What’s more likely to happen, is the affected people start taking unpaid leave to keep their salary below £100k. Doubly so if they have childcare.
Some people work regardless of tax. The Beatles didn't stop because they were paying 98%, although they did write a song about it.
They first set up a company to handle their income, which was novel at the time, and then they moved to the US.
Lots more people being found guilty I reckon. Sentencing of course is going to remain the same orbit - so prisons will become more full of edge cases where a jury wouldn't convict but a judge would.
Unless it's an immigration case, where that may be reversed.
That's quite funny, CR, but it's a serious question and I should think there must have been some research done in this area, and also on the optimum size for a jury, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
From my now much overworked sample of four I can say that in two of the cases the judge would have found differently. In one of them, the guy was obviously guilty but the judge didn't blame the jury for getting it wrong. He blamed the prosecution for presenting the case so poorly. (It was the poor sod's first case and he got in a right mess.) In the other I think everyone present was surprised when we returned a guilty verdict. I remain convinced to this day that we got it right.
I'm conflicted about the abolition of jury trials for medium level cases. I've no problem with most of the bizarre decisions .... the Colston statue, for example, although I did scratch my head over that of the Duchess of Edinburgh's outrider. It's always seemed to me that juries had, or should have, local knowledge which should lead them to a sensible confusion. In that connection I recall reading (I'm not THAT old) of the pre-WWII case of the Welsh Nationalists who set fire to a RAF base in Gwynedd, and the trial was moved to London because a local jury had disagreed, and the judge, and the State, very definitely wanted a conviction.
Jury trial dates back to ancient times; yes, but do we, in the 21st century get more 'accurate' results than, say, the Scandinavians, the French or the Germans? Who, as far as I know, rely on judges and assessors. (I'm prepared to be corrected on this.)
Do continental criminal lawyers get quite as combative as ours seem to, and are witnesses treated better or worse? Has anyone actually done any dispassionate work on this? Or are we simply seeing a knee-jerk response to what I hope is a short-term problem?
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
Another Scottish great, Finn Russell, also an apprenticed stonemason.
I worked beside Alistair (Zal) Cleminson in the early noughties, lovely guy who taught me the essentials of Excel. No, he didn't wear the make up to work.
That really deserves more than the one like I am able to give it.
Edit: I've just looked Finn Russell up - because your fact rang a bell - and I'm reminded of this lovely phrase on Wikipedia: "Russell did not feel drawn to academic work". It feels like this terse phrase possibly hides several years of his teachers' expletives about the extent to which he was 'drawn to academic work'.
Can anybody recommend any good books about Airey Neave please?
THere's always his own writings about his escape from Colditz and his work in MI9 - They have hteir Exits and Saturday at MI9 but they prob don't cover the political era.
Patrick Bishop's biog I seem to remember reading - it was acceptable enough but I didn't feel the need to keep it. There is another biog by Routledge which I have not read.
Is MI9 intelligence for dyslexics?
No, it was really called that (just in case it's not a witty pun by you). A separate dept to help Allied servicemen esp. RAF etc evade capture, or escape from PoW camps, provide maps in chessboards, arrange escape trails etc.
Edit: Airey Neave was assigned to that for obvious reasons of experience of both PoW life and escaping, but also because IIRC he knew too much and wasn't allowed to go into the field in NWE lest he be captured and the information about his helpers etc. be extracted by torture. Obviously a good use of his experience, thjough the alternative would have been going to the Indo-Burmese front, of course.
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
I'll engage - I saw them in 1976, with Little Feat, supporting The Who, at Charlton football ground - at the time, the loudest concert ever, apparently. They were fun. I still haven't recovered, as we approach the fiftieth anniversary. PS - just checked. The ticket was £4!
£4 must have been quite pricey for live music in 1976. I remember seeing Oasis for £5 in 1993 (this was at the Leadmill in Sheffield, rather than the stadium gigs they moved on to, but still).
I'd have loved to have seen SAHB. I've only ever seen them on telly, of course (what with Alex Harvey having died when I was 7) - but I love the amount of aggression which he manages to get into the act of standing still in a slightly daft big stripey t-shirt.
I measure in beers. In 1976, £4 would have bought 12 pints, so around £60-70 at today's prices. So still quite cheap - and it was for the whole day, around 7 bands I think.
My sympathy for reducing our use of jury trials stems largely from the experience of four weeks spent mostly hanging around in jury rooms, interspersed with small periods of time actually sitting on trials. I see my suggestions for cutting down on some of the inefficiency was shot down by Cyclefree and other great and good posters on this august site, so maybe I should can it. I'm still not sure though why you need twelve jurors in all cases. How did we alight on that number? Why wouldn't ten or six work?
From my experience you usually get three or four jurors who say nothing and just vote with the crowd.
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
There's likely to be considerable numbers of people who are learning about salary sacrifice pension contributions and wondering why they've never benefited from there.
It wouldn't surprise me if the number of people who use salary sacrifice increases, certainly for the next three years, and probably permanently.
Barring unexpected scandals or disasters Starmer and Reeves should now be safe until the May local elections, giving themselves time to shore up support. But the cost of choosing this [less bold] option is that, once again, the truly difficult decisions have been put off for later and little has been done to deal with the big problems facing the country.
The country doesn’t want anyone to deal with the big problems
Then we will face the consequences of the big problems dealing with the country and not in the gradualist way we might have. As I said yesterday, I fear the risk of this has increased with this faux budget.
What were your thoughts on Kemi and the Tories response. I was a fan and would be surprised if we didn't see Tory Labour crossover cemented over the coming weeks.
Thoughts and prayers for Robert Jenrick.
I think you have it right. If her own side were impressed it's not good news for OZEMPIC Bob. But as for 'crossovers' and moving dials......that's MoonRabbit thinking!
I've just found out that Alex Harvey - of the Sensational Alex Harvey band - was in the masons (and unusually, had actually worked with stone, having at one time been a carver of gravestones). Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
I'll engage - I saw them in 1976, with Little Feat, supporting The Who, at Charlton football ground - at the time, the loudest concert ever, apparently. They were fun. I still haven't recovered, as we approach the fiftieth anniversary. PS - just checked. The ticket was £4!
£4 must have been quite pricey for live music in 1976. I remember seeing Oasis for £5 in 1993 (this was at the Leadmill in Sheffield, rather than the stadium gigs they moved on to, but still).
I'd have loved to have seen SAHB. I've only ever seen them on telly, of course (what with Alex Harvey having died when I was 7) - but I love the amount of aggression which he manages to get into the act of standing still in a slightly daft big stripey t-shirt.
I measure in beers. In 1976, £4 would have bought 12 pints, so around £60-70 at today's prices. So still quite cheap - and it was for the whole day, around 7 bands I think.
Well in those terms, not unreasonable. And you got the Who in their pomp.
Looks as if Govt has done a massive, completely unnecessary own goal.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
There's likely to be considerable numbers of people who are learning about salary sacrifice pension contributions and wondering why they've never benefited from there.
It wouldn't surprise me if the number of people who use salary sacrifice increases, certainly for the next three years, and probably permanently.
It's one of those things like deeds of variation and of assignation that are parsed by person of speech in DT-speak: a sensible financial arrangment for me, but stupidly ignored by you oikish prole, and evil when perpetrated by some leftie pol.
Seriously, though, it's not a good thing that those things depend so much on financial expertise.
Comments
Or do the politicians politely work against you?
As a teacher used to ask me, where's your [their] grammar? And as I used to reply, in Baddow cemetery.
Extracting money from people travelling through has been the Swiss USP since medieval times when they first robbed and later moved on to charging people for crossing the Alps.
Next week, same question, different problem. After a year, you’ve fixed the top few dozen problems affecting the company.
(* Except iirc for damages in civil trials in Scotlandshire.)
Here endeth the lesson.
So happy bond markets are a start, but the real sign is public cheeriness, and the investor world desperate to get slices of new UK action (not quasi rent seeking) for fear of missing out on BoomUK.
She has a plan to reduce dept as a % of GDP. Which nobody found credible. She has a plan to cut waste and complexity and thus cost which transpires to add more complexity and thus cost. Let's not get started on tax where its more tweaks, more adjustments, more reliefs. What does it mean? A big tax hike on business property (which using the pub example will be ELE for many) which puts the cost of everything up.
And the real tragedy? The Tories scream about Labour taxing and Labour failing whilst the rest of us note that these were largely their policies and they had the same failings. Or we could have Reform doing all the things Putin wants like making us beholden to gas imports.
We needed a lot more than that. Where's the vision thing? She said a guaranteed job for youth. Great - doing what? We have a serious lack of an industrial strategy which in turn leads to a huge skills shortage and thus both a lack of jobs and unfillable jobs. We need people to build homes, build machines, create our industrial base for tomorrow. A guaranteed job in an Amazon warehouse does nothing for us.
You have ticked off the main tropes in male reactions to women leaders - as observed in The Warrior Queens by Antonia Fraser.
People in £2mn houses are not 'middle England'. Perhaps he needs to widen his circle of acquaintances. I mean, I am minted and even I don't live in a £2mn house.
Here endeth the second lesson.
Juries play no part in sentencing.
As ever, one gives the devil the benefit of law - for one’s own safety’s sake.
https://news.sky.com/story/edward-colston-statue-four-protesters-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-after-toppling-monument-of-slave-trader-12509488
The practice likely originated with the Welsh King Morgan of Gla-Morgan, who, in the 8th century, based the jury size on the 12 Apostles of Jesus.
Say it isn't so!
It takes time to iron out bottlenecks (my main experience of seeing this is in manufacturing where I saw a biological manufacturing facility in Israel double its capacity over 5 years without expanding its footprint)
After a jury acquitted those who damaged the Colston statue, acquitted a Labour councillor who made a hate speech comment and a jury acquitted a police escort rider for the Duchess of Edinburgh of careless driving causing death after he killed an elderly pedestrian over the speed limit it is not surprising some voters back the government proposed changes when a judge likely would have convicted them on the law. Especially for criminal damage and some driving offences
But the source does not always need to be political; it could have been a civil servant rather than a politician. Given the apparent relations between ministers (or at least Number 10) and civil servants at the moment, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that at least one civil servant is very keen to leak information that makes the government look bad. I suspect that was the case in the last parliament as well.
Now sentencing - juries would 100% give longer terms than a judge in most cases. But that's not changing, it's always been the judge who decides that bit.
Most of them appear to have backgrounds in public sector, NGO, unions etc, none of them have ever needed to attract customers and make a profit.
That’s a huge drop.
Not sure what to do with this information, so I'm leaving it here.
Her problem with credibility is that she relies on the denominator in the fraction to do all the work – hence her harping on about 'growth' – but she has no control over that, whereas what she could control is the numerator. But that gives rise to political difficulties so she backed off. Who would bet against the debt to GDP ratio rising over the span of her watch?
The opposing view was not to use active intelligence operations against the paramilitaries, hunker down in fortified bases and let the Men Of Violence get on with it.
Instead we had the three tracks -
1) intelligence infiltrated the paramilitaries until they were franchises of HMG. Then they went for the peace process. Funny that.
2) active patrolling by the army and RUC to keep a lid on things and prevent the paramilitaries taking over daily life
3) the political process.
Reading comments on various newspaper websites, the vast majority of people think tax relief on all pension contributions is being reduced so only £2k of contributions is allowable.
So someone contributing say £10k into a pension will lose £1,600 if basic rate taxpayer, and £3,200 if higher rate taxpayer.
Of course this is nonsense, the change only affects people doing salary sacrifice.
But most people don't understand this at all and think they will be hit themselves - and hit massively.
It's even dafter because change doesn't come in until April 2029 - so probably will be after the GE in any case.
These would be huge sums - it's going to frighten lots of people and cost Labour a lot of votes.
From my now much overworked sample of four I can say that in two of the cases the judge would have found differently. In one of them, the guy was obviously guilty but the judge didn't blame the jury for getting it wrong. He blamed the prosecution for presenting the case so poorly. (It was the poor sod's first case and he got in a right mess.) In the other I think everyone present was surprised when we returned a guilty verdict. I remain convinced to this day that we got it right.
Yet it is Labour’s taboo-breaking tax on expensive homes that is the most dangerous of all: it is tantamount to a quasi-authoritarian reopening of settled property rights and fundamentally reorders the relationship between citizen and state. Her scheme begins to abolish freehold property, turning yeoman-owners into leaseholders, with politicians the ultimate landlords. Her “high value council tax surcharge” is best understood as a rent, to be paid to Reeves for the right to stay in one’s own home. Labour hates ordinary landlords, but is desperate to turn the state into the most exploitative of rent collectors. It’s sub-Marxist nonsense, a form of legalised theft.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/26/britain-now-socialist-country-what-reeves-budget-means/
PS - just checked. The ticket was £4!
111,000 people claimed asylum in year ending September 2025 though, which is large and half of those were illegal small boats.
People will make a stand against terrorists, but only if they think the authorities will defend them, which is why 2) is so important. The key to defeating insurgents is for the government to visibly demonstrate its authority.
I'd have loved to have seen SAHB. I've only ever seen them on telly, of course (what with Alex Harvey having died when I was 7) - but I love the amount of aggression which he manages to get into the act of standing still in a slightly daft big stripey t-shirt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/dc84d427acb438da
Except that won’t happen, because people are mostly rational actors. What’s more likely to happen, is the affected people start taking unpaid leave to keep their salary below £100k. Doubly so if they have childcare.
I worked beside Alistair (Zal) Cleminson in the early noughties, lovely guy who taught me the essentials of Excel.
No, he didn't wear the make up to work.
There was an excellent BBC documentary about day to day life in the border areas in the 80s - can’t find it…
One part dealt with a local quarry. Since explosives would be a magnet for the PIRA, they were stored on an army base and helicoptered in for each blast the quarry did.
The army commander for the area explained it was about the State taking on the additional burden (as much as possible), rather than just closing the quarry and collapsing a piece of the social economy.
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/ubtech-secures-us37-million-deal
Indian students net immigration of 45,000 (Largest nationality & subtype of migration)
Net emigration of 2,000 for Ukraine.
Net emigration of 70,000 EU.
Net emigration of 109,000 British
Age profile of migration looks ok tbh.
Just so everyone is on the same page.
Jury trial dates back to ancient times; yes, but do we, in the 21st century get more 'accurate' results than, say, the Scandinavians, the French or the Germans? Who, as far as I know, rely on judges and assessors. (I'm prepared to be corrected on this.)
Do continental criminal lawyers get quite as combative as ours seem to, and are witnesses treated better or worse? Has anyone actually done any dispassionate work on this? Or are we simply seeing a knee-jerk response to what I hope is a short-term problem?
Edit: I've just looked Finn Russell up - because your fact rang a bell - and I'm reminded of this lovely phrase on Wikipedia:
"Russell did not feel drawn to academic work".
It feels like this terse phrase possibly hides several years of his teachers' expletives about the extent to which he was 'drawn to academic work'.
Edit: Airey Neave was assigned to that for obvious reasons of experience of both PoW life and escaping, but also because IIRC he knew too much and wasn't allowed to go into the field in NWE lest he be captured and the information about his helpers etc. be extracted by torture. Obviously a good use of his experience, thjough the alternative would have been going to the Indo-Burmese front, of course.
It wouldn't surprise me if the number of people who use salary sacrifice increases, certainly for the next three years, and probably permanently.
Seriously, though, it's not a good thing that those things depend so much on financial expertise.