I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
The pub he is talking about is not his £200 a head place.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
That’s not profit though and he’s not open 365 days a year.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
The pub he is talking about is not his £200 a head place.
That wasn’t clear from the reports on Social media, after all the Hand and Flowers is always touted as the only 2 Michelin star pub. He also have a couple of cottages in Marlow people can stay at when dining.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
The pub he is talking about is not his £200 a head place.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey after fatal shooting: "To ICE: Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We don't want you here"
Stay classy.
It will be really polarising. If you look at the video, one of the ICE officers positions himself in front of the protester's car while she's reversing, then she pulls forwards and he shoots her but her wheels are turning as if she's trying to pull away rather than drive at him.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
The pub he is talking about is not his £200 a head place.
Another one is £50k to £124k which is what was mentioned earlier in the thread and I responded to. Not sure which one it is but its in Marlow and not the Coach. Flowers seems most likely.
It's a sub sample of less than 100 votes from the main More In Common poll.
I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
If you want an alternative take, the YouGov sub sample of 18-24 year olds (weighted 246, Unweighted 204) has:
Green: 38% Liberal Democrat: 19% Labour 18% Conservative: 11% Reform: 10%
This seems a desperate attempt by a few on here to talk up the Conservatives - not sure I understand why given Badenoch's slavish devotion to Trump.
By the way, if you look at the likelihood to vote, guess which group contains the fewest certain to vote...
What both Yougov and MiC agree on though is that the Tories under Kemi are ahead of Reform with 18-24s unlike nationally and with MiC even ahead of Labour and the LDs with 18-24s.
As I said before, Kemi is now the most hip party leader with under 30s in this country after Polanski, her Stamp Duty cut plan has also gone down well with them.
Indeed, I don't think a Tory leader has been as popular with young voters as Kemi has since Cameron pre 2010! That will at least show the Tory party is not dying out and unlike the last few years is not as pensioner heavy as before, with many pensioners now voting Reform
Among 25-34 year olds, according to More In Common, the Conservatives are on 21%, behind Labour (31%) and Reform (24%) but that is of course another polling sub sample so not to be taken too seriously.
According to Wikpedia, at the 2010 election, Labour won 31% with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats tied on 30% among 18-24 year olds. By 2015, Labour were ahead 43-27 among the same age group.
You are right inasmuch as even the 11% recorded by YouGov would be a step forward but if you are going to get carried away by a sub sample of less than 100 people as a basis for building up your party and leader as the alternative Government and Prime Minister (rather than possible junior partners to the real credible alternative) go for it.
No but as I said it shows that Kemi has been making real gains with young people since 2024, especially from Labour even if she has been losing voters amongst the middle aged and pensioners to Reform.
The few times things actually cross his desk, Mr Forensic Detail doesn't seem very good at detail.
I think an apology might be in order.
What Starmer said was
"How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet, advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?”
That is true. Unless you are arguing that Abramovich isn't trying to avoid sanctions.
Wolfson seems to have recused himself from giving advice on Ukraine, so he knows he is compromised.
Taking Wolfson's letter at face value:
He's not in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's uncontroversial.
He is not advising Abramovich on sanctions, certainly not in the UK.
It is nothing to do with the Ukraine money which are the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea held in the UK.
Parliamentary privilege and all that but a PM should be a lot more careful than that in making accusations in the House of Commons.
Did Starmer say Wolfson was advising Abramovich on sanctions? No. Did he say he was advising him in a UK jurisdiction? No.
You're a lawyer. Apart from the Shad Cab thing which is a bit of a technicality surely you can see that Starmer's statement contains no factual inaccuracies.
Wolfson obviously sees Abramovich as a suitable person to do business with, presumably based on the size of his pocket book. He could have told him to idi na khuy.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
That’s not profit though and he’s not open 365 days a year.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
In terms of marginal profitability an additional customer at the price range is probably around £150 profit.
The few times things actually cross his desk, Mr Forensic Detail doesn't seem very good at detail.
I think an apology might be in order.
What Starmer said was
"How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet, advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?”
That is true. Unless you are arguing that Abramovich isn't trying to avoid sanctions.
Wolfson seems to have recused himself from giving advice on Ukraine, so he knows he is compromised.
Taking Wolfson's letter at face value:
He's not in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's uncontroversial.
He is not advising Abramovich on sanctions, certainly not in the UK.
It is nothing to do with the Ukraine money which are the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea held in the UK.
Parliamentary privilege and all that but a PM should be a lot more careful than that in making accusations in the House of Commons.
Did Starmer say Wolfson was advising Abramovich on sanctions? No. Did he say he was advising him in a UK jurisdiction? No.
You're a lawyer. Apart from the Shad Cab thing which is a bit of a technicality surely you can see that Starmer's statement contains no factual inaccuracies.
Wolfson obviously sees Abramovich as a suitable person to do business with, presumably based on the size of his pocket book. He could have told him to idi na khuy.
No, other Labour MPs did over Xmas. It was a clear line of attack. I linked one earlier.
The Lib Dem proposals to overhaul business rates completely make plenty of sense, though the transition would be complex and not without losers:
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
That’s not profit though and he’s not open 365 days a year.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
In terms of marginal profitability an additional customer at the price range is probably around £150 profit.
Obviously that’s not the Coach. They’re a little cheaper. I just looked at Hand and Flowers and they are doing £25 and £35 meals (2 or 3 courses) early in the week to pull in punters.
I’m still not sure why, just because a restaurant sells high end food at a high end price it means they are less deserving of sympathy than, say, Jamie’s Italian.
He did a BBC series a couple of years ago where he had to look at, to get punters into his London venue, a cut price menu as he was struggling with it.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
That’s not profit though and he’s not open 365 days a year.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
In terms of marginal profitability an additional customer at the price range is probably around £150 profit.
Obviously that’s not the Coach.
I’m still not sure why, just because a restaurant sells high end food at a high end price it means they are less deserving of sympathy than, say, Jamie’s Italian.
He did a BBC series a couple of years ago where he had to look at, to get punters into his London venue, a cut price menu as he was struggling with it.
It will be worse now.
Because it is easier to get 1 extra person to pay £200 than 10 extra people to pay £20 within a fixed space.
The Lib Dem proposals to overhaul business rates completely make plenty of sense, though the transition would be complex and not without losers:
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
The Lib Dem proposals to overhaul business rates completely make plenty of sense, though the transition would be complex and not without losers:
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
So who would be the losers with this ? The vacant and underused land ?
So what would stop someone, like in our town, knocking down the shops and putting a car park in place. It’s still being used.
I think, on initial look at it, there looks to be merit in this. But more detail is needed.
The Lib Dem proposals to overhaul business rates completely make plenty of sense, though the transition would be complex and not without losers:
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
All well and good but insufficient. I propose a new sin tax on social media, with half going to councils to reduce business rates, and the other half going to councils to increase their budgets to cope with the inevitable increases in care costs that no-one wants to mention as our population ages, lives longer and we increase care sector wages.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
That’s not profit though and he’s not open 365 days a year.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
In terms of marginal profitability an additional customer at the price range is probably around £150 profit.
Obviously that’s not the Coach.
I’m still not sure why, just because a restaurant sells high end food at a high end price it means they are less deserving of sympathy than, say, Jamie’s Italian.
He did a BBC series a couple of years ago where he had to look at, to get punters into his London venue, a cut price menu as he was struggling with it.
It will be worse now.
Because it is easier to get 1 extra person to pay £200 than 10 extra people to pay £20 within a fixed space.
That easy he’s offering £25 and £35 set meals until Mid March to get punters in.
He’s also offering £85 classics menu in the week to pull punters in.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
That’s not profit though and he’s not open 365 days a year.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
In terms of marginal profitability an additional customer at the price range is probably around £150 profit.
Obviously that’s not the Coach.
I’m still not sure why, just because a restaurant sells high end food at a high end price it means they are less deserving of sympathy than, say, Jamie’s Italian.
He did a BBC series a couple of years ago where he had to look at, to get punters into his London venue, a cut price menu as he was struggling with it.
It will be worse now.
Kerridge is, or at least was a tenant landlord at the H and F. The quality of food is sublime. When I went just after COVID steak and chips was £85. If every pub was run like the H and F the pubs would be full despite the price. I'm the opposite, may Kerridge thrive. Jamie can shove his Italian, what an arrogant twat to think his pizzas are better than those of a chef from Naples. I did eat at the one in Cardiff once and it was shite. I do like the Ivy in Cardiff mind.
The Lib Dem proposals to overhaul business rates completely make plenty of sense, though the transition would be complex and not without losers:
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
All well and good but insufficient. I propose a new sin tax on social media, with half going to councils to reduce business rates, and the other half going to councils to increase their budgets to cope with the inevitable increases in care costs that no-one wants to mention as our population ages, lives longer and we increase care sector wages.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
At the prices he charges thats about 1 extra person dining per day.....
A fatuous answer that ignores a real issue.
£200 a head, 365 days a year is pretty much £74k.
If they were charging £20 a head, they might have my sympathy.
That’s not profit though and he’s not open 365 days a year.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
In terms of marginal profitability an additional customer at the price range is probably around £150 profit.
Obviously that’s not the Coach.
I’m still not sure why, just because a restaurant sells high end food at a high end price it means they are less deserving of sympathy than, say, Jamie’s Italian.
He did a BBC series a couple of years ago where he had to look at, to get punters into his London venue, a cut price menu as he was struggling with it.
It will be worse now.
Kerridge is, or at least was a tenant landlord at the H and F. The quality of food is sublime. When I went just after COVID steak and chips was £85. If every pub was run like the H and F the pubs would be full despite the price. I'm the opposite, may Kerridge thrive. Jamie can shove his Italian, what an arrogant twat to think his pizzas are better than those of a chef from Naples. I did eat at the one in Cardiff once and it was shite. I do like the Ivy in Cardiff mind.
They were going to put an Ivy in the toon but it got canned when Covid came along. Instead some dreck like 5 guys got put in. I’ve eaten at the one in Leeds and it was magnificent.
Jamie’s Italian was not only shit but massively overpriced too. Dined there once as it was arranged as a night out by a friend of my wife. Not a fan.
Honestly the pizza from the stall in the Grainger market was better. There are so many decent pizza places in Newcastle. I’m glad it’s gone.
We ate at Hand and Flowers many years ago and it was excellent. A great experience. Not the best dining I’ve ever had but certainly up there. The starter, a carrot and black pudding tart, was glorious.
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
The Lib Dem proposals to overhaul business rates completely make plenty of sense, though the transition would be complex and not without losers:
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
So who would be the losers with this ? The vacant and underused land ?
So what would stop someone, like in our town, knocking down the shops and putting a car park in place. It’s still being used.
I think, on initial look at it, there looks to be merit in this. But more detail is needed.
There is some more detail behind it - it’s one of the longest standing and most worked through of the party’s policies, but the devil would be in the real detail - valuation methods for example.
The losers would be commercial landlords, of course, but also inevitably there would be some edge cases where the tenant would be hit by passed-on taxes in rent rises that exceed what they’ve saved in business rates. But nonetheless the economics underlying it make much more sense than the current business rates mess.
Real estate taxation still I think suffers the hangover of the last time someone tried a fundamental overhaul. That led to Thatcher being ousted. So politicians have ducked it ever since.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
What I can't understand is why the rates are so high - they are genuinely a fair and up to date reflection of rents charged, but those rents should be very small given the lack of viability for many of these businesses. Demand should be low.
The Lib Dem proposals to overhaul business rates completely make plenty of sense, though the transition would be complex and not without losers:
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
So who would be the losers with this ? The vacant and underused land ?
So what would stop someone, like in our town, knocking down the shops and putting a car park in place. It’s still being used.
I think, on initial look at it, there looks to be merit in this. But more detail is needed.
There is some more detail behind it - it’s one of the longest standing and most worked through of the party’s policies, but the devil would be in the real detail - valuation methods for example.
The losers would be commercial landlords, of course, but also inevitably there would be some edge cases where the tenant would be hit by passed-on taxes in rent rises that exceed what they’ve saved in business rates. But nonetheless the economics underlying it make much more sense than the current business rates mess.
Real estate taxation still I think suffers the hangover of the last time someone tried a fundamental overhaul. That led to Thatcher being ousted. So politicians have ducked it ever since.
If commercial landlords deliberately leaving a property empty as they don’t want to offer it for a lower rent lose out, then fine AFAIC.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
What I can't understand is why the rates are so high - they are genuinely a fair and up to date reflection of rents charged, but those rents should be very small given the lack of viability for many of these businesses. Demand should be low.
So wtf is propping up these rents?
A lot of pension funds are invested in commercial property. They have to keep rents high because if they reduced them to an affordable rate, they would be forced to acknowledge that their property portfolios are worth millions less than they say they are.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
What I can't understand is why the rates are so high - they are genuinely a fair and up to date reflection of rents charged, but those rents should be very small given the lack of viability for many of these businesses. Demand should be low.
So wtf is propping up these rents?
A lot of pension funds are invested in commercial property. They have to keep rents high because if they reduced them to an affordable rate, they would be forced to acknowledge that their property portfolios are worth millions less than they say they are.
Not only that the other properties they have the tenants will be wanting a reduction at the next rent review.
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
either way it clear they want to incite some riots so they can suspend elections later this year
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
either way it clear they want to incite some riots so they can suspend elections later this year
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
Who is arguing anything else? They are recovering, and Badenoch's ratings are improving. I don't see what is controversial or arguable about either statement
The polls are odd because Reform are leading by such a margin, so the point that they are only just ahead of one of the least popular PMs of recent times (I was pilloried for predicting would be unpopular) is correct whilst being a bit misleading.
Because unless something changes Badenoch will lead the Conservatives to an even worse defeat at the next election than their previous worst ever result in 2024. More in Common have them going from 120 to 70 seats and from second place party n to third place. Other calculations are available. This so far has been on Badenoch's watch. The Conservative vote share was actually rising while no-one was in charge after the election. She sent it rapidly downwards. The minor recent blip doesn't compensate. As I mentioned above Badenoch has a long way to go to get back to where she first started.
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
I've missed the planned economy where the government gets to tell the market how to operate down to the salary level. God bless the socialist republic!
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
Not sure she was aiming at the ICE guy, just trying to get away. Law enforcement in the USA all over the country are trigger happy in situations like this.
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
either way it clear they want to incite some riots so they can suspend elections later this year
Bit early to pull that. They need summer riots.
Incredibly there are still Democrats thinking that the midterm elections are going to save the day.
I remember a rule of thumb I was told*. In a fire something like 10% of people will scoot before any alarm or order to evacuate if they see signs of smoke or flames. They essentially rescue themselves. Another 10% will go and investigate the fire, even if it means litterally entering a burning building, and many of these people end up dead as a result. The remaining 80% of people will basically watch a fire start and only escape when either it gets dangerous towards them or someone shouts at them to leave. These people need to be told or forced to escape. I guess that that 80% of people would contain the "don't worry the midterms are coming" crowd.
* No idea how true this is, but it certainly sounds plausible to me.
I've missed the planned economy where the government gets to tell the market how to operate down to the salary level. God bless the socialist republic!
Oh, hang on. Wait. What?
Companies looking to list the the USA, will they think twice now with this loose cannon in charge.
I suspect some money will be made by savvy investors over this,
Does Trump have the power to do that?
Apparently so the apt word being ‘potentially’
‘ President Trump's Jan 7, 2026 statement targets defense contractors' inefficiencies. He proposes capping executive pay at $5M unless they build modern production plants, and banning dividends/stock buybacks until fixed.
The Defense Production Act (1950 law) allows presidents to direct private firms to prioritize national defense production, potentially enabling enforcement here. Stocks like Lockheed Martin fell ~5% in response.’
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey after fatal shooting: "To ICE: Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We don't want you here"
Stay classy.
It will be really polarising. If you look at the video, one of the ICE officers positions himself in front of the protester's car while she's reversing, then she pulls forwards and he shoots her but her wheels are turning as if she's trying to pull away rather than drive at him.
"Civil servant shoots member of the public dead".
In another timeline, that would have played badly to either pole.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
Tom Kerridge enthusiastically supported Labour and SKS before the election. We tried to warn him.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey after fatal shooting: "To ICE: Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We don't want you here"
Stay classy.
It will be really polarising. If you look at the video, one of the ICE officers positions himself in front of the protester's car while she's reversing, then she pulls forwards and he shoots her but her wheels are turning as if she's trying to pull away rather than drive at him.
"Civil servant shoots member of the public dead".
In another timeline, that would have played badly to either pole.
It looked to me like the ICE guy was at the side of her car not in front of it, and he fired in the side window.
I've missed the planned economy where the government gets to tell the market how to operate down to the salary level. God bless the socialist republic!
Oh, hang on. Wait. What?
This is good news for the UK and Europe, frankly.
A combination of factors have made companies choose to headquarter and list in the US rather than here in recent years: a perception of greater liquity and higher multiples, a more indulgent attitude to executive pay (aka “easier to attract senior talent”), and since the side by side deal on the global minimum tax there’s now a potential tax advantage to being US parented too.
So this sort of push factor helps to level the playing field. Political and regulatory risk. Not so much the reality of it (this is focused on a very specific sector), but the chilling effect and greater uncertainty for other sectors.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
Tom Kerridge enthusiastically supported Labour and SKS before the election. We tried to warn him.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
With great difficulty. It’s fine people saying this is going back to what it was before COVID. COVID changed hospitality and going out, it’s a different landscape.
Anyway, as for Kerridge. He signed up for this.
‘Tom Kerridge is among business leaders who have signed a letter that calls for a change in government to address the economy, which they said had “been beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus”.
The letter to The Times, signed by 120 founders and chief executives, said that “Labour has shown it has changed and wants to work with business to achieve the UK’s full economic potential’
It's the idea that so many businesses were fooled that Labour actually wanted to work with them that I find so astonishing.
They wanted them to sign letters, donate to them, and publicly support them - but they had and have no desire to modify their policy or ideology to support them one iota.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey after fatal shooting: "To ICE: Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We don't want you here"
Stay classy.
It will be really polarising. If you look at the video, one of the ICE officers positions himself in front of the protester's car while she's reversing, then she pulls forwards and he shoots her but her wheels are turning as if she's trying to pull away rather than drive at him.
"Civil servant shoots member of the public dead".
In another timeline, that would have played badly to either pole.
It looked to me like the ICE guy was at the side of her car not in front of it, and he fired in the side window.
Well, that sounds totally fine then. From the side window.
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
Tom Kerridge enthusiastically supported Labour and SKS before the election. We tried to warn him.
This is what they do. It's in their DNA.
The long saga of business rates and their killing of the high street and hospitality is a project of nearly a decade and multiple administrations. Both main parties had similar plans in their manifestos.
Executives of US defense contractors will no longer be allowed to make more than $5 million unless they build "new and modern production plants."
Labour backbenchers will be envious of this kind of approach.
Labour backbenchers, if they don't view private business as fundamentally a criminal enterprise, otherwise view them as an instrument of public policy and a cash cow.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey after fatal shooting: "To ICE: Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We don't want you here"
Stay classy.
It will be really polarising. If you look at the video, one of the ICE officers positions himself in front of the protester's car while she's reversing, then she pulls forwards and he shoots her but her wheels are turning as if she's trying to pull away rather than drive at him.
"Civil servant shoots member of the public dead".
In another timeline, that would have played badly to either pole.
It looked to me like the ICE guy was at the side of her car not in front of it, and he fired in the side window.
Well, that sounds totally fine then. From the side window.
I’m not defending it you Klutz.
I suggesting William’s post is wrong, probably as new film has come to light. This potentially changes it from self defence.
Executives of US defense contractors will no longer be allowed to make more than $5 million unless they build "new and modern production plants."
Labour backbenchers will be envious of this kind of approach.
Labour backbenchers, if they don't view private business as fundamentally a criminal enterprise, otherwise view them as an instrument of public policy and a cash cow.
The productive economy is there to have its pockets picked to reward the unproductive economy.
We have a labour business team made up,of people who’ve never run in, or worked in, a business. Just charities, NGOs and the like. Utterly useless.
Executives of US defense contractors will no longer be allowed to make more than $5 million unless they build "new and modern production plants."
Labour backbenchers will be envious of this kind of approach.
Labour backbenchers, if they don't view private business as fundamentally a criminal enterprise, otherwise view them as an instrument of public policy and a cash cow.
The productive economy is there to have its pockets picked to reward the unproductive economy.
We have a labour business team made up,of people who’ve never run in, or worked in, a business. Just charities, NGOs and the like. Utterly useless.
But this is just letting a Conservative plan play out, isn't it? The previous Chancellor didn't announce plans to keep the reductions going, or leave any slack in the kitty to fund it. Did he?
(A bit like the way that the temporary fuel duty cut was always going to stop next year, every year. See also how quickly the Triple Lock and Winter Fuel Payments went from innovations to Fundamental English Rights that you can find in Magna Carta if you look hard enough. If Rishi's Dishies/Eat Out To Help Out had continued for a bit longer, that would also have become an inalienable thing.)
Executives of US defense contractors will no longer be allowed to make more than $5 million unless they build "new and modern production plants."
Labour backbenchers will be envious of this kind of approach.
Labour backbenchers, if they don't view private business as fundamentally a criminal enterprise, otherwise view them as an instrument of public policy and a cash cow.
The productive economy is there to have its pockets picked to reward the unproductive economy.
We have a labour business team made up,of people who’ve never run in, or worked in, a business. Just charities, NGOs and the like. Utterly useless.
Yes.
I imagine the backbenches to be made up of lots of Ed Milibands and Owen Jones's, at various states in the process, but all going in the same direction.
...I got told off by some dimwit on here this morning about quoting a sub sample of 2000 voters...
That was me. The number in the subsample is not relevant. The weights are. If the poll is weighted then the weights being applied will be national weights, so the subsamples are inaccurately weighted (unless the local weights match the national weights, and they usually don't). This is why subsamples are usually deprecated on PB.
Well, the number is relevant because of sampling error, so Stodge is right to say 2,000 is more than enough. The problem is it isn't the only source of error.
I think sub-sample analysis is perfectly fine as long as you state what you're up to and the limitations.
Yes, I explicitly said this morning it was a sub sample of the main YouGov poll. I would like a full England-only poll as a reasonable comparison but there don't seem to be all that many of those.
Those who just cut and paste from Lord Ashcroft's site without checking the sources are the ones to be hauled over the metaphorical coals but that's too often how this site works - people see something on X which matches their worldview and paste it because developing your own argument is obviously far too much work.
The sub sample has been weaponised by those supportive of the Conservative cause to "suggest" 16-24 year olds are big supporters of the party and the way it is reported on here is as a separate poll of 16-24 year olds only.
I don't see anyone posting the equivalent YouGov sub sample which had the Conservatives on 11% but that doesn't mean the "narrative" some are trying to float on here of a Conservative recovery and Badenoch as the next Prime Minister (or kingmaker).
It's more the "fact" of a Conservative recovery than a "narrative". They are ahead of Labour in every national VI poll now I think, and Badenoch the leader with the most improved ratings in the last three months or so.
Per Google AI
As of January 2026, the Conservative vote share has declined since Kemi Badenoch became Leader of the Opposition on November 2, 2024.
When Badenoch became leader (November 2024): The Conservative party held an average poll-of-polls rating of 26%. Immediately following her appointment, some individual polls showed a slight "Badenoch bounce," with one More in Common poll placing the party at 29%.
Current vote share (January 2026): The Conservative party now averages approximately 19% in recent poll-of-polls and trackers.
This against the one of the most unpopular prime ministers of recent times (neck and neck with Liz Truss)
Who is arguing anything else? They are recovering, and Badenoch's ratings are improving. I don't see what is controversial or arguable about either statement
The polls are odd because Reform are leading by such a margin, so the point that they are only just ahead of one of the least popular PMs of recent times (I was pilloried for predicting would be unpopular) is correct whilst being a bit misleading.
Because unless something changes Badenoch will lead the Conservatives to an even worse defeat at the next election than their previous worst ever result in 2024. More in Common have them going from 120 to 70 seats and from second place party n to third place. Other calculations are available. This so far has been on Badenoch's watch. The Conservative vote share was actually rising while no-one was in charge after the election. She sent it rapidly downwards. The minor recent blip doesn't compensate. As I mentioned above Badenoch has a long way to go to get back to where she first started.
Well I’d venture that things will change before the next GE one way or another and, as Badenoch’s ratings are improving much faster than anybody else’s, it’s not ridiculous to think she will do better than the Conservatives did last time. The party leading the polls by a mile are likely to deflate between now and then, and she is well placed to pick up the pieces
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
Tom Kerridge enthusiastically supported Labour and SKS before the election. We tried to warn him.
This is what they do. It's in their DNA.
The long saga of business rates and their killing of the high street and hospitality is a project of nearly a decade and multiple administrations. Both main parties had similar plans in their manifestos.
Which is a weak excuse.
Labour are in government now. It's been their choice to levy higher employers NI, higher minimum wages, more employment regulation, more business rates and now, potentially, more restrictions on what they can sell onto them.
Sigh. So Labour look like they're going to cave again on business rates.
It's bloody obvious that the covid reduction would have to be temporary. Why at a time of difficult budget choices would we want to prioritise tax cuts for pubs and restaurants?
Probably they will thread the needle of rowing back in a way that is both expensive and doesn't make anyone happy.
Executives of US defense contractors will no longer be allowed to make more than $5 million unless they build "new and modern production plants."
Labour backbenchers will be envious of this kind of approach.
Labour backbenchers, if they don't view private business as fundamentally a criminal enterprise, otherwise view them as an instrument of public policy and a cash cow.
The productive economy is there to have its pockets picked to reward the unproductive economy.
We have a labour business team made up,of people who’ve never run in, or worked in, a business. Just charities, NGOs and the like. Utterly useless.
But this is just letting a Conservative plan play out, isn't it? The previous Chancellor didn't announce plans to keep the reductions going, or leave any slack in the kitty to fund it. Did he?
(A bit like the way that the temporary fuel duty cut was always going to stop next year, every year. See also how quickly the Triple Lock and Winter Fuel Payments went from innovations to Fundamental English Rights that you can find in Magna Carta if you look hard enough. If Rishi's Dishies/Eat Out To Help Out had continued for a bit longer, that would also have become an inalienable thing.)
Conservatives have no right to complain of this being built into the countries budget, as they did it.
The few times things actually cross his desk, Mr Forensic Detail doesn't seem very good at detail.
I think an apology might be in order.
What Starmer said was
"How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet, advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?”
That is true. Unless you are arguing that Abramovich isn't trying to avoid sanctions.
Wolfson seems to have recused himself from giving advice on Ukraine, so he knows he is compromised.
Taking Wolfson's letter at face value:
He's not in the Shadow Cabinet. I think that's uncontroversial.
He is not advising Abramovich on sanctions, certainly not in the UK.
It is nothing to do with the Ukraine money which are the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea held in the UK.
Parliamentary privilege and all that but a PM should be a lot more careful than that in making accusations in the House of Commons.
This is what Starmer actually said
She has in her shadow Cabinet a shadow Attorney General who is advising Abramovich at the same time as we are imposing sanctions on Russia and trying to use that money to support Ukraine. How can someone sit in her shadow Cabinet advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?
(Spiel from Badenoch about Lord Wolfson)
The Leader of the Opposition talks about the shadow Attorney General. Of course, I accept that lawyers have to represent all sorts of crime. Of course, I accept that principle. The question is whether the shadow Attorney General can sit in the shadow Cabinet when the Conservative party says it supports us on sanctions. We want the money from Chelsea football club to go to Ukraine. I am not sure whether that is the Leader of the Opposition’s position. If it is her position, presumably it is something they discuss in the shadow Cabinet, advised by a shadow Attorney General who is representing the very man whose money we want to send to Ukraine. If she cannot see the conflict of interest in that, then she shows no judgment and no leadership at all
So on Lord Wolfson's points
1. Starmer was precisely correct in his second statement on the Shadow Attorney General's role in the Shadow Cabinet. His first statement was vague, but not necessarily incorrect. It depends whether you consider "in" to include "attends but is not a member of". It's irrelevant anyway. 2. The court case in Jersey is an attempt by Abramovitch to suspend the freezing of his assets in that jurisdiction. At the same time HMG require Abramovitch to hand over £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea FC. The only known available funds are those frozen in Jersey. So the case is linked to sanctions even if it's not directly part of the case. 3. Starmer expects the Shadow Attorney General to advise the Shadow Cabinet on the Opposition's sanctions policy. ie that's the kind of advice the role, which is an official one, is intended to provide. Neither Wolfson nor Badenoch addressed this point, but the fact that he subsequently recused himself from providing this advice suggests Starmer was correct.
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
Not sure she was aiming at the ICE guy, just trying to get away. Law enforcement in the USA all over the country are trigger happy in situations like this.
If I’m interpreting that correctly he shot her from the side though the driver window not from the front? Ie she was already past him and clearly about to head down the road
I know they already tried to spin it 'domestic terrorism', but it will be interesting/terrifying to see if the regime gets any blowback at all for shooting a young white woman multiple times in the face for no good reason.
orange and musk already spinning that she was trying to run people over in a stationary vehicle.
Not sure she was aiming at the ICE guy, just trying to get away. Law enforcement in the USA all over the country are trigger happy in situations like this.
If I’m interpreting that correctly he shot her from the side though the driver window not from the front? Ie she was already past him and clearly about to head down the road
Yes, that’s how,I saw it too. So, in that case surely the threat, if there was one, no longer exists ?
I glanced at the earlier debate about alcohol limits, drinking, driving and pubs.
I'll be heretical - I can quite happily go into a pub, NOT have an alcoholic drink and enjoy myself. I certainly agree with those who assert the pub is a focal point for social life especially in rural communities - yes, and I enjoyed the hospitality of one in Waldron, albeit under unfortunaste circumstances, just before Christmas.
The ending of business rates relief for pubs is a disaster and rather like the Winter Fuel Allowance, the political presentation has been equally catastrophic. Had the relief been extended or an announcement it would be phased out over a three year period (perhaps) been part of the Budget, there'd have been grumblings I'm sure but I know enough about business to understand an immediate 110% increase in a key overhead isn't good news.
Subsidising the existence and maintenance of pubs when you are looking at a £150 billion deficit probably isn't a good idea but this is one of those times when the cost matters much less than the value. That being said, have the Conservatives, LDs, Reform or any other party opposed to the Reeves plan said whether they would re-introduce the Business Rates relief were they to become the Government and at what level?
The business rates changes are going to kill many businesses. They are simply not sustainable and I can see the exchequer actually losing money as so many businesses just shut up shop.
Tom Kerridge was on LBC talking about this. The rates on his pub in Marlow are going up from £50,000 a year to £124,000 a year.
How can any small business survive that sort of change?
What I can't understand is why the rates are so high - they are genuinely a fair and up to date reflection of rents charged, but those rents should be very small given the lack of viability for many of these businesses. Demand should be low.
The US will always have a special place in my heart, having studied in Massachusetts and worked in California.
I’m proud to kick off celebrations for @America250, the 250th anniversary since the declaration of independence, honouring our shared history and close future.
The US will always have a special place in my heart, having studied in Massachusetts and worked in California.
I’m proud to kick off celebrations for @America250, the 250th anniversary since the declaration of independence, honouring our shared history and close future.
That is a curious reaction to the rebellion in the 13 colonies.
The US will always have a special place in my heart, having studied in Massachusetts and worked in California.
I’m proud to kick off celebrations for @America250, the 250th anniversary since the declaration of independence, honouring our shared history and close future.
Close future, you say?
(George III in Hamilton:)
You'll be back, soon you'll see You'll remember you belong to me You'll be back, time will tell You'll remember that I served you well...
Executives of US defense contractors will no longer be allowed to make more than $5 million unless they build "new and modern production plants."
Labour backbenchers will be envious of this kind of approach.
Labour backbenchers, if they don't view private business as fundamentally a criminal enterprise, otherwise view them as an instrument of public policy and a cash cow.
The productive economy is there to have its pockets picked to reward the unproductive economy.
We have a labour business team made up,of people who’ve never run in, or worked in, a business. Just charities, NGOs and the like. Utterly useless.
But this is just letting a Conservative plan play out, isn't it? The previous Chancellor didn't announce plans to keep the reductions going, or leave any slack in the kitty to fund it. Did he?
(A bit like the way that the temporary fuel duty cut was always going to stop next year, every year. See also how quickly the Triple Lock and Winter Fuel Payments went from innovations to Fundamental English Rights that you can find in Magna Carta if you look hard enough. If Rishi's Dishies/Eat Out To Help Out had continued for a bit longer, that would also have become an inalienable thing.)
Conservatives have no right to complain of this being built into the countries budget, as they did it.
You don’t really get this whole free speech thing do you? They have the right to complain about whatever they like
Comments
They are too slow delivering equipment for the US and their allies.
Oh well, any defence Dividend Kings or Aristocrats will lose their crown.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2008980600082891204?s=61
That one the increase is different. £50,500 to £106,000.
He doesn’t have my sympathy as he voted for it, so suck it up, but why should a high end restaurant or its owner not be deserving of sympathy. It’s still people losing their livelihoods.
Wonder how much Hand and Flowers is going up by.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/chef-tom-kerridge-says-whats-33173824
Then the Coach is clearly £50.5k to £106k.
Another one is £50k to £124k which is what was mentioned earlier in the thread and I responded to. Not sure which one it is but its in Marlow and not the Coach. Flowers seems most likely.
Even 21% now amongst 25-34 year olds would be better than the 14% Yougov had Rishi getting in 2024 with 25-49 year olds and 10% IpsosMori had the Tories getting with 25-34 year olds in 2024 too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results
You're a lawyer. Apart from the Shad Cab thing which is a bit of a technicality surely you can see that Starmer's statement contains no factual inaccuracies.
Wolfson obviously sees Abramovich as a suitable person to do business with, presumably based on the size of his pocket book. He could have told him to idi na khuy.
I suspect some money will be made by savvy investors over this,
A Commercial Landowner Levy (CLL) is a proposed tax by the UK's Liberal Democrats to replace business rates, focusing on taxing the value of commercial land rather than the buildings, aiming for fairer bills, boosting high streets, and supporting small businesses by shifting the burden onto landowners, potentially lowering tenant costs.
While currently a political proposal, it would tax the land value directly, encouraging efficient land use, unlike current business rates that penalise investment in improvements.
Key Features of the CLL Proposal:
Tax Land, Not Buildings: Shifts taxation from the capital value of the entire property (land + building) to just the land's value
Landowner Pays: Aims to place the tax burden on landowners rather than tenants
Abolish Business Rates: Replaces the existing business rates system, which has faced criticism for hurting high streets and discouraging investment
Economic Benefits: Intended to provide net tax cuts for businesses, lower bills for sectors like hospitality, and close regional divides
Why it's Proposed:
High Street Crisis: Aims to alleviate struggles on UK high streets by creating a fairer system for occupiers
Investment Incentive: Encourages development and efficient use of land by taxing vacant land or poorly utilized sites more
Current Status:
The CLL is a policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats, first outlined in 2018 and reiterated in their subsequent manifestos. It is not currently UK law, but a potential future reform.
Labour backbenchers will be envious of this kind of approach.
It was weird on the previous thread, too.
https://thehandandflowers.co.uk/special-occasion/set-lunch
I’m still not sure why, just because a restaurant sells high end food at a high end price it means they are less deserving of sympathy than, say, Jamie’s Italian.
He did a BBC series a couple of years ago where he had to look at, to get punters into his London venue, a cut price menu as he was struggling with it.
It will be worse now.
So what would stop someone, like in our town, knocking down the shops and putting a car park in place. It’s still being used.
I think, on initial look at it, there looks to be merit in this. But more detail is needed.
What's different about Trump is that he barely attempts to hide it- same as his approach to power plays international relations.
I'm pretty sure Trump is worse than his predecessors, on quantity and degree if nothing else. But he might win back a point by not trying to hide it.
He’s also offering £85 classics menu in the week to pull punters in.
Jamie’s Italian was not only shit but massively overpriced too. Dined there once as it was arranged as a night out by a friend of my wife. Not a fan.
Honestly the pizza from the stall in the Grainger market was better. There are so many decent pizza places in Newcastle. I’m glad it’s gone.
We ate at Hand and Flowers many years ago and it was excellent. A great experience. Not the best dining I’ve ever had but certainly up there. The starter, a carrot and black pudding tart, was glorious.
The losers would be commercial landlords, of course, but also inevitably there would be some edge cases where the tenant would be hit by passed-on taxes in rent rises that exceed what they’ve saved in business rates. But nonetheless the economics underlying it make much more sense than the current business rates mess.
Real estate taxation still I think suffers the hangover of the last time someone tried a fundamental overhaul. That led to Thatcher being ousted. So politicians have ducked it ever since.
So wtf is propping up these rents?
Russian factory of engine parts elects a new pope.
https://x.com/daractenus/status/2008953414060068986?s=61
either way it clear they want to incite some riots so they can suspend elections later this year
‘Breaking: Channel 5 is to air “The Downfall of Huw Edwards,” a two part drama starring Martin Clunes as Huw Edwards.
It follows the downfall of the disgraced former BBC News presenter.‘
https://x.com/scottygb/status/2008992202878554565?s=61
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2008998556913574161?s=61
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13491642/martin-chivers-former-tottenham-and-england-striker-dies-aged-80
More videos in the thread.
I
Oh, hang on. Wait. What?
Not sure she was aiming at the ICE guy, just trying to get away. Law enforcement in the USA all over the country are trigger happy in situations like this.
I remember a rule of thumb I was told*. In a fire something like 10% of people will scoot before any alarm or order to evacuate if they see signs of smoke or flames. They essentially rescue themselves. Another 10% will go and investigate the fire, even if it means litterally entering a burning building, and many of these people end up dead as a result. The remaining 80% of people will basically watch a fire start and only escape when either it gets dangerous towards them or someone shouts at them to leave. These people need to be told or forced to escape. I guess that that 80% of people would contain the "don't worry the midterms are coming" crowd.
* No idea how true this is, but it certainly sounds plausible to me.
‘ President Trump's Jan 7, 2026 statement targets defense contractors' inefficiencies. He proposes capping executive pay at $5M unless they build modern production plants, and banning dividends/stock buybacks until fixed.
The Defense Production Act (1950 law) allows presidents to direct private firms to prioritize national defense production, potentially enabling enforcement here. Stocks like Lockheed Martin fell ~5% in response.’
In another timeline, that would have played badly to either pole.
This is what they do. It's in their DNA.
A combination of factors have made companies choose to headquarter and list in the US rather than here in recent years: a perception of greater liquity and higher multiples, a more indulgent attitude to executive pay (aka “easier to attract senior talent”), and since the side by side deal on the global minimum tax there’s now a potential tax advantage to being US parented too.
So this sort of push factor helps to level the playing field. Political and regulatory risk. Not so much the reality of it (this is focused on a very specific sector), but the chilling effect and greater uncertainty for other sectors.
They wanted them to sign letters, donate to them, and publicly support them - but they had and have no desire to modify their policy or ideology to support them one iota.
Perhaps we should have given Trump a globe as a diplomatic gift. That or a simple Molleweide world map (Gall-Peters is horrible).
/mapgeek
You're a couple in years out of date.
Ukraine celebrates first Christmas on 25 December
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67816987.amp
I suggesting William’s post is wrong, probably as new film has come to light. This potentially changes it from self defence.
We have a labour business team made up,of people who’ve never run in, or worked in, a business. Just charities, NGOs and the like. Utterly useless.
https://x.com/disclosetv/status/2009003728804999232
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issues a warning order to prepare the Minnesota National Guard: "I feel your anger. I'm angry."
He is President Gangster.
For me, from the vehicles tyres, she’s trying to turn away from the ICE agent not hit him.
I expect in the US people will inform their view based on their politics
https://x.com/osint613/status/2009001299090792795?s=61
https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.com/post/3mbufe7jgec2o
Its all going a bit Pete Tong for Russian allies this week.
(A bit like the way that the temporary fuel duty cut was always going to stop next year, every year. See also how quickly the Triple Lock and Winter Fuel Payments went from innovations to Fundamental English Rights that you can find in Magna Carta if you look hard enough. If Rishi's Dishies/Eat Out To Help Out had continued for a bit longer, that would also have become an inalienable thing.)
There is a lack of coverage. It’s quite significant event. Russia has run three evacuation flights of embassy staff from Israel.
I imagine the backbenches to be made up of lots of Ed Milibands and Owen Jones's, at various states in the process, but all going in the same direction.
Labour are in government now. It's been their choice to levy higher employers NI, higher minimum wages, more employment regulation, more business rates and now, potentially, more restrictions on what they can sell onto them.
No ifs, no buts.
"Would you say Canada as a country is moving in the right or wrong direction?"
Right Direction: 53% (+30)
Wrong Direction: 31% (-33)
Nanos / December 29, 2025 / n=1000 / MOE 3.1% / Telephone/Online
(% Change With December 2024)
https://bsky.app/profile/canadianpolling.bsky.social/post/3mbrkd5imkc2l
It's bloody obvious that the covid reduction would have to be temporary. Why at a time of difficult budget choices would we want to prioritise tax cuts for pubs and restaurants?
Probably they will thread the needle of rowing back in a way that is both expensive and doesn't make anyone happy.
She has in her shadow Cabinet a shadow Attorney General who is advising Abramovich at the same time as we are imposing sanctions on Russia and trying to use that money to support Ukraine. How can someone sit in her shadow Cabinet advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?
(Spiel from Badenoch about Lord Wolfson)
The Leader of the Opposition talks about the shadow Attorney General. Of course, I accept that lawyers have to represent all sorts of crime. Of course, I accept that principle. The question is whether the shadow Attorney General can sit in the shadow Cabinet when the Conservative party says it supports us on sanctions. We want the money from Chelsea football club to go to Ukraine. I am not sure whether that is the Leader of the Opposition’s position. If it is her position, presumably it is something they discuss in the shadow Cabinet, advised by a shadow Attorney General who is representing the very man whose money we want to send to Ukraine. If she cannot see the conflict of interest in that, then she shows no judgment and no leadership at all
So on Lord Wolfson's points
1. Starmer was precisely correct in his second statement on the Shadow Attorney General's role in the Shadow Cabinet. His first statement was vague, but not necessarily incorrect. It depends whether you consider "in" to include "attends but is not a member of". It's irrelevant anyway.
2. The court case in Jersey is an attempt by Abramovitch to suspend the freezing of his assets in that jurisdiction. At the same time HMG require Abramovitch to hand over £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea FC. The only known available funds are those frozen in Jersey. So the case is linked to sanctions even if it's not directly part of the case.
3. Starmer expects the Shadow Attorney General to advise the Shadow Cabinet on the Opposition's sanctions policy. ie that's the kind of advice the role, which is an official one, is intended to provide. Neither Wolfson nor Badenoch addressed this point, but the fact that he subsequently recused himself from providing this advice suggests Starmer was correct.
https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/2008944502300659838?s=61
Federal agents blocked a man identifying himself as a doctor from reaching the woman killed by ICE in Minneapolis, video shared with HuffPost shows
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/latest-news-trump-maduro_n_695bb603e4b0d6beb5fd9469/liveblog_695ebd75e4b0b3db6e4d7e52
The US will always have a special place in my heart, having studied in Massachusetts and worked in California.
I’m proud to kick off celebrations for @America250, the 250th anniversary since the declaration of independence, honouring our shared history and close future.
(George III in Hamilton:)
You'll be back, soon you'll see
You'll remember you belong to me
You'll be back, time will tell
You'll remember that I served you well...
EDIT @Foxy beat me to it!
But it could provoke widespread resistance to the bunch of thugs that people ICE.