So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
But no political party is proposing scrapping it as it would make them unelectable.
We are more likely to have a government propose a 100% higher rate and additional rate income tax, a massive increase in corporation tax, a mansion tax of 100% for expensive properties over £1 million or universal credit scrapped and replaced with foodbanks than the triple lock is to be scrapped
You still haven't understood about being electable
There is no money so hard choices lie ahead, no more so than if you had maxed out your credit and ignored your bank manager to live within your means
As I also said and you yet again ignored Labour and the Greens would increase tax on business and higher earners and the wealthy rather than scrap the triple lock and the Tories and Jenrick for Reform too it seems cut universal credit and scrap net zero and EDI schemes rather than scrap the triple lock
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
It should all go into defence.
It won't, because I think politics has now become a zero sum game and a personal free-for-all.
Scoop: Moscow proposed a deal to the U.S. under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence information with Iran if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia. U.S. said no.
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
But no political party is proposing scrapping it as it would make them unelectable.
We are more likely to have a government propose a 100% higher rate and additional rate income tax, a massive increase in corporation tax, a mansion tax of 100% for expensive properties over £1 million or universal credit scrapped and replaced with foodbanks than the triple lock is to be scrapped
You still haven't understood about being electable
There is no money so hard choices lie ahead, no more so than if you had maxed out your credit and ignored your bank manager to live within your means
As I also said and you yet again ignored Labour and the Greens would increase tax on business and higher earners and the wealthy rather than scrap the triple lock and the Tories and Jenrick for Reform too it seems cut universal credit and scrap net zero and EDI schemes rather than scrap the triple lock
Scrapping all EDI budgets over the course of a parliament probably funds a day or two of the triple lock.
Voters believe in the Magic Money Tree, and it's partner, the Reform Fairy - where money for X can always be found through vague references to 'reform' or 'efficiency', predicated on the assumption no one has ever thought about making things more efficient before.
And because they do, politicians rely on both, and we'll be screwed.
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
*adopts whiny, pedantic tone* Given that a 'staycation' means staying in the actual house where I live for my holiday, I don't need to 'book' it. *whiny, pedantic tone off. For now*
In case anyone thinks this is the general populace or voters who are "stupid", I've been in executive meetings this week who've exhibited exactly the same level of cognitive dissonance.
Human beings are remarkably good at that when the truth is inconvenient for them personally.
Well quite. The general populace are stupid about this, because we are generally stupid, just on different things. And our leaders are included in that.
Voters believe in the Magic Money Tree, and it's partner, the Reform Fairy - where money for X can always be found through vague references to 'reform' or 'efficiency', predicated on the assumption no one has ever thought about making things more efficient before.
And because they do, politicians rely on both, and we'll be screwed.
I’m coming to the view that there are people who would rather be enslaved than see an end to the triple lock.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
I was told by a financial adviser years ago we'd probably work til we die, and I really took that to heart. I'm in a better position (financially at any rate) than a lot of people I know simply because I have fewer outgoings, but I expect to have no more than 5 years of retirement before death, if I am lucky.
Voters believe in the Magic Money Tree, and it's partner, the Reform Fairy - where money for X can always be found through vague references to 'reform' or 'efficiency', predicated on the assumption no one has ever thought about making things more efficient before.
And because they do, politicians rely on both, and we'll be screwed.
I’m coming to the view that there are people who would rather be enslaved than see an end to the triple lock.
Kind of reminds me of those people who tie their objections to, well, anything, on that it might negatively impact house prices, as if there is an iron law that everyone's house must always massively increase in value.
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
*adopts whiny, pedantic tone* Given that a 'staycation' means staying in the actual house where I live for my holiday, I don't need to 'book' it. *whiny, pedantic tone off. For now*
For the financially well off if it is not overseas it is not a real holiday, making a UK vacation a staycation. Unless it was really fancy I suppose.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
I was told by a financial adviser years ago we'd probably work til we die, and I really took that to heart. I'm in a better position (financially at any rate) than a lot of people I know simply because I have fewer outgoings, but I expect to have no more than 5 years of retirement before death, if I am lucky.
"we'd probably work til we die,"
Nonsense.
After death, your brain will be kept in a jar. Working forever.....
The magic money tree only exists during times of war.
I thought current Green policy was that printing money for everything works fine combined with thinking economic growth is not actually desirable in the first place, and others are not far off that, so I'm sure we can find the tree in times of peace too.
I interviewed President Trump by phone. He doubled down on his anger at NATO and said all we need is “numbers” in the Strait to open it, Iran has nothing left. Also, when asked if Japan gave any assurance of military support given that 90 percent of their oil comes from the Strait, the President say they have Constitutional restraints but would be there for us if we needed them, saying “Japan is better ally than NATO.” More to come on The Story. 3 pm and on The Five tonight.
Scoop: Moscow proposed a deal to the U.S. under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence information with Iran if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia. U.S. said no.
In case anyone thinks this is the general populace or voters who are "stupid", I've been in executive meetings this week who've exhibited exactly the same level of cognitive dissonance.
Human beings are remarkably good at that when the truth is inconvenient for them personally.
Anyone familiar with your long posting history on PB knows that already
I interviewed President Trump by phone. He doubled down on his anger at NATO and said all we need is “numbers” in the Strait to open it, Iran has nothing left. Also, when asked if Japan gave any assurance of military support given that 90 percent of their oil comes from the Strait, the President say they have Constitutional restraints but would be there for us if we needed them, saying “Japan is better ally than NATO.” More to come on The Story. 3 pm and on The Five tonight.
He hates NATO but wants them to do whatever he says, whilst also insisting the USA needs no allies for anything ever. Hard to see why things have gotten strained.
But in all seriousness he and Vance will be loving the chance to kneecap NATO more than they already have, and given the level of support he still has among the GOP, a large chunk of america is being permanently poisoned against the alliance, so they are achieving their aim.
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
*adopts whiny, pedantic tone* Given that a 'staycation' means staying in the actual house where I live for my holiday, I don't need to 'book' it. *whiny, pedantic tone off. For now*
For the financially well off if it is not overseas it is not a real holiday, making a UK vacation a staycation. Unless it was really fancy I suppose.
Not sure about that. A week in Spain is significantly cheaper than a week in the UK for equivalent standard hotels and food despite adding flight costs. A weekend comparable.
Received an easter themed email to entice me to sign up to some, um, adult entertainment site, and was very disappointed not to have a 'you will rise again' type reference. It's like they don't even try anymore.
Did they not think this through before starting this shit?
It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
Few people will remember that story so if this war ends the media could treat it as a new story.
Which means that this war won’t end because the risk to Trump is too great
Other countries are available if they decide the costs are too high in keeping this one going.......
As the Telegraph reported in an article I linked to earlier Trump has launched attacks at 13 countries in the past 13 months (ie 1 a month).
Amazing how people will believe what you say more than what you do though. My Corbynista father and his wife went slightly warmer towards Trump last year because 'at least he believes in peace', and I guess that was enough for them.
They have definitely soured against him again (not that they ever went fully positive), but they still probably hate him less than they do Keir.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
As I keep saying -
1) Merge employee NI And IT 2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially. 3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable. 4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....
Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.
The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
You merge employee NI and IT
That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.
This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.
So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
Which again could be done by removing the 2% employee NI rate that NI goes to after £967 a week on to income tax to make income tax 42%.
Easily done and that 2% higher rate NI is a relatively recent invention anyway
The idea is to remove employee NI from the board entirely. So no games to play avoiding NI.
Sensible in many ways. However, two things would follow.
1 Better-off pensioners would pay more than now. 2 The headline rate of income tax would be higher than now.
Both of these are electorally as popular as being told to find a stick, sharpen it and then poke yourself in the eye with the sharp stick. (Sharp sticks and eye pokers were both cut in the coalition austerity round).
The problem remains- we all sort of Intuit that fiscal rebalancing is needed in general, but not in particular.
It's about messaging
1) You announce the abolition of Income Tax and Employee National Insurance 2) You announce the Introduction of the Save The NHS, Protect Cute Kittens and Kick Racists In The Goolies Tax. 3) Any opposition to the proposals is framed as you hate the NHS, you want to kill kittens and you like racists.
Sounds a good plan, but too many voters have been labelled racist themselves for that bit to work as well as it otherwise might have.
Voters believe in the Magic Money Tree, and it's partner, the Reform Fairy - where money for X can always be found through vague references to 'reform' or 'efficiency', predicated on the assumption no one has ever thought about making things more efficient before.
And because they do, politicians rely on both, and we'll be screwed.
I’m coming to the view that there are people who would rather be enslaved than see an end to the triple lock.
What a fool Osborne was to create it.
Well there was at least one PBer who pointed that out 15 years ago.
And also predicted that student tuition fees would also end in disaster.
However, that PBer was told that any such problems would be decades away and would be sorted out beforehand.
I interviewed President Trump by phone. He doubled down on his anger at NATO and said all we need is “numbers” in the Strait to open it, Iran has nothing left. Also, when asked if Japan gave any assurance of military support given that 90 percent of their oil comes from the Strait, the President say they have Constitutional restraints but would be there for us if we needed them, saying “Japan is better ally than NATO.” More to come on The Story. 3 pm and on The Five tonight.
Also, I'm surprised he was able to utter the phrase 'constitutional restraints' without making a bitter tirade about tariffs.
Representative Lauren Boebert, the longtime Maga supporter, has publicly broken with the Trump administration over its latest military spending request, citing the economic struggles of her constituents as her primary reason for opposition.
In an interview with CNN, Boebert stated she would not support the Pentagon’s $200bn war supplemental, a massive funding package intended to sustain the ongoing conflict with Iran. The package is aimed at replenishing US munition stockpiles and funding Operation Epic Fury, but Boebert argued that such a high price tag is unjustifiable while people in Colorado face a rising cost of living.
“I am a ‘no’. I’ve already told leadership I am a ‘no’ on any war supplementals. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere,” Boebert said. “I am tired of the industrial-war complex getting all of our hard-earned tax dollars. I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America-first policies right now, and that? I’m not doing that.”
There is no way Trump is getting this $200bn from Congress.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
As I keep saying -
1) Merge employee NI And IT 2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially. 3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable. 4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....
Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.
The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
You merge employee NI and IT
That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.
This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.
So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
Which again could be done by removing the 2% employee NI rate that NI goes to after £967 a week on to income tax to make income tax 42%.
Easily done and that 2% higher rate NI is a relatively recent invention anyway
The idea is to remove employee NI from the board entirely. So no games to play avoiding NI.
Sensible in many ways. However, two things would follow.
1 Better-off pensioners would pay more than now. 2 The headline rate of income tax would be higher than now.
Both of these are electorally as popular as being told to find a stick, sharpen it and then poke yourself in the eye with the sharp stick. (Sharp sticks and eye pokers were both cut in the coalition austerity round).
The problem remains- we all sort of Intuit that fiscal rebalancing is needed in general, but not in particular.
It's about messaging
1) You announce the abolition of Income Tax and Employee National Insurance 2) You announce the Introduction of the Save The NHS, Protect Cute Kittens and Kick Racists In The Goolies Tax. 3) Any opposition to the proposals is framed as you hate the NHS, you want to kill kittens and you like racists.
Sounds a good plan, but too many voters have been labelled racist themselves for that bit to work as well as it otherwise might have.
Well, you add in " and Stop Giving All The Money To Immigrants" in the name for the tax.
As regards the public who mostly remain deluded apart from of course learned members in here ! they seem to think that the government can just keep giving out huge amounts of money when any crisis appears .
I’m beginning to view some pensioners as hostage takers . If any party dare touch a single penny of the triple lock the hostage loses a finger with worse to come ! Or in this case they punish them at the ballot box .
The attitude seems to be those in work are there to provide them with a constant cash machine !
"The commander in chief was reportedly told that the mullahs might not agree to go gently into the night, but he seems to have waved away such concerns because he was so convinced that the Iranian regime would collapse almost immediately. According to The Wall Street Journal, when General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned the president that a U.S. attack would prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, Trump “told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.” "
...
"[Putin and Trump] made classic strategic errors. They engaged in what analysts call “scriptwriting”: They decided what they wanted to happen, and then wrote out a kind of script in which their adversaries would dutifully play their part and recite their lines. They also both seem to have ignored the standard war-gaming caution to plan for what the enemy can do, not for what you would prefer that it do."
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
*adopts whiny, pedantic tone* Given that a 'staycation' means staying in the actual house where I live for my holiday, I don't need to 'book' it. *whiny, pedantic tone off. For now*
For the financially well off if it is not overseas it is not a real holiday, making a UK vacation a staycation. Unless it was really fancy I suppose.
It is possible to be well off without losing one's grip on reality.
"The commander in chief was reportedly told that the mullahs might not agree to go gently into the night, but he seems to have waved away such concerns because he was so convinced that the Iranian regime would collapse almost immediately. According to The Wall Street Journal, when General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned the president that a U.S. attack would prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, Trump “told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.” "
...
"[Putin and Trump] made classic strategic errors. They engaged in what analysts call “scriptwriting”: They decided what they wanted to happen, and then wrote out a kind of script in which their adversaries would dutifully play their part and recite their lines. They also both seem to have ignored the standard war-gaming caution to plan for what the enemy can do, not for what you would prefer that it do."
A fairly recent piece of polling that depressed me was that people still wanted to tax millionaires more, even if that meant less tax coming in. I mean the mess the nappy stupidity of it.
Whoever comes in, the public will need to be consciously trained to become more resilient, the way that socialism has consciously trained them (and trains them still) to become ever more helpless and dependent.
I'm thankful not to be one of those having to make choices for the country. I know pensioners who are already finding it impossible to make ends meet, fulltime working people ditto, longterm sick/disabled ditto.
I know far too many longterm sick/disabled people who are utterly genuine 'cases', in some cases whole families of them. Not ill-wishing anybody but sometimes it seems our society has turned Darwin on its head.
Sometimes it seems that comment sections up and down the internet are filled with innumerate geniuses who have calculated that £600 a night to lock someone away for years on end in a hospital is cheaper, kinder, and better than giving someone £100 a week in PIP. People that they won't employ and pretend it's out of kindness, and when they are employed, a system is set up that makes employment insurance unaffordable for this subset such that they can only fall back on benefits. Which everyone cries about them getting.
Ultimately we already have UBI - 40% of Universal Credit claimants are in work, many of whom are working in the brutally overstretched sectors of Health and Social Care that haven't had pay rises in 15 years. One OT said to me, "the drive for efficiency leads no room for compassion, but the only thing that will help us survive the drive for effifciency is compassion," and we had a good laugh about that.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
A fairly recent piece of polling that depressed me was that people still wanted to tax millionaires more, even if that meant less tax coming in. I mean the mess the nappy stupidity of it.
Whoever comes in, the public will need to be consciously trained to become more resilient, the way that socialism has consciously trained them (and trains them still) to become ever more helpless and dependent.
Bringing the Jones's down to your level is much less effort than keeping up with them.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Very unlikely now . There was a chance earlier when Trump could have called it “ mission accomplished “ but they’ll have to put ground troops in to secure the Strait of Hormuz and there’s still the issue of the nuclear material .
A fairly recent piece of polling that depressed me was that people still wanted to tax millionaires more, even if that meant less tax coming in. I mean the mess the nappy stupidity of it.
Whoever comes in, the public will need to be consciously trained to become more resilient, the way that socialism has consciously trained them (and trains them still) to become ever more helpless and dependent.
One good polling question would be:
Would you prefer to see more / fewer / zero rich people in the UK ?
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
I was told by a financial adviser years ago we'd probably work til we die, and I really took that to heart. I'm in a better position (financially at any rate) than a lot of people I know simply because I have fewer outgoings, but I expect to have no more than 5 years of retirement before death, if I am lucky.
They say that when you retire you do 3 things - Go on expensive holidays - buy a fast car - pick up a younger squeeze.
Suggest you do the last one first to guarantee if you die within 5 years, at least you'll be happy.
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
*adopts whiny, pedantic tone* Given that a 'staycation' means staying in the actual house where I live for my holiday, I don't need to 'book' it. *whiny, pedantic tone off. For now*
For the financially well off if it is not overseas it is not a real holiday, making a UK vacation a staycation. Unless it was really fancy I suppose.
It is possible to be well off without losing one's grip on reality.
Many of the well off and with a grip on reality do not appear to be as well off as they actually are.
Whereas many of those who appear to be well off but without a grip on reality are not as well off as they think they are.
A fairly recent piece of polling that depressed me was that people still wanted to tax millionaires more, even if that meant less tax coming in. I mean the mess the nappy stupidity of it.
Whoever comes in, the public will need to be consciously trained to become more resilient, the way that socialism has consciously trained them (and trains them still) to become ever more helpless and dependent.
One good polling question would be:
Would you prefer to see more / fewer / zero rich people in the UK ?
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
*adopts whiny, pedantic tone* Given that a 'staycation' means staying in the actual house where I live for my holiday, I don't need to 'book' it. *whiny, pedantic tone off. For now*
For the financially well off if it is not overseas it is not a real holiday, making a UK vacation a staycation. Unless it was really fancy I suppose.
It is possible to be well off without losing one's grip on reality.
Many of the well off and with a grip on reality do not appear to be as well off as they actually are.
Whereas many of those who appear to be well off but without a grip on reality are not as well off as they think they are.
A million would be influencers hanging around Dubai spring to mind.
"The commander in chief was reportedly told that the mullahs might not agree to go gently into the night, but he seems to have waved away such concerns because he was so convinced that the Iranian regime would collapse almost immediately. According to The Wall Street Journal, when General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned the president that a U.S. attack would prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, Trump “told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.” "
...
"[Putin and Trump] made classic strategic errors. They engaged in what analysts call “scriptwriting”: They decided what they wanted to happen, and then wrote out a kind of script in which their adversaries would dutifully play their part and recite their lines. They also both seem to have ignored the standard war-gaming caution to plan for what the enemy can do, not for what you would prefer that it do."
Before the battle of Midway, some impudent juniors in the IJN won the war game of the battle, playing the Americans.
They were told to apologise for their rudeness.
History then proceeded.
The same thing almost happened when Zhukov war gamed the Germans capturing Moscow, and Stalin’s lackeys condemned him. But, Stalin was more in touch with reality than Trump is.
As regards the public who mostly remain deluded apart from of course learned members in here ! they seem to think that the government can just keep giving out huge amounts of money when any crisis appears .
I’m beginning to view some pensioners as hostage takers . If any party dare touch a single penny of the triple lock the hostage loses a finger with worse to come ! Or in this case they punish them at the ballot box .
The attitude seems to be those in work are there to provide them with a constant cash machine !
Yes, I'm afraid you're right. I've been wondering how things will change once we've all died off.
Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages
Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves
Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.
Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.
While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.
There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
I was told by a financial adviser years ago we'd probably work til we die, and I really took that to heart. I'm in a better position (financially at any rate) than a lot of people I know simply because I have fewer outgoings, but I expect to have no more than 5 years of retirement before death, if I am lucky.
They say that when you retire you do 3 things - Go on expensive holidays - buy a fast car - pick up a younger squeeze.
Suggest you do the last one first to guarantee if you die within 5 years, at least you'll be happy.
Went on a holiday for the first time in 7 years last year, and planning another this year.
By this time next year I'll have completed my transformation into @Leon. Younger squeeze may have to wait though.
A fairly recent piece of polling that depressed me was that people still wanted to tax millionaires more, even if that meant less tax coming in. I mean the mess the nappy stupidity of it.
Whoever comes in, the public will need to be consciously trained to become more resilient, the way that socialism has consciously trained them (and trains them still) to become ever more helpless and dependent.
One good polling question would be:
Would you prefer to see more / fewer / zero rich people in the UK ?
"The commander in chief was reportedly told that the mullahs might not agree to go gently into the night, but he seems to have waved away such concerns because he was so convinced that the Iranian regime would collapse almost immediately. According to The Wall Street Journal, when General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned the president that a U.S. attack would prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, Trump “told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.” "
...
"[Putin and Trump] made classic strategic errors. They engaged in what analysts call “scriptwriting”: They decided what they wanted to happen, and then wrote out a kind of script in which their adversaries would dutifully play their part and recite their lines. They also both seem to have ignored the standard war-gaming caution to plan for what the enemy can do, not for what you would prefer that it do."
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
He can always point to Khamenei as job done, even if nothing else changes much (albeit with Iran's military capacity having taken a beating as well).
As regards the public who mostly remain deluded apart from of course learned members in here ! they seem to think that the government can just keep giving out huge amounts of money when any crisis appears .
I’m beginning to view some pensioners as hostage takers . If any party dare touch a single penny of the triple lock the hostage loses a finger with worse to come ! Or in this case they punish them at the ballot box .
The attitude seems to be those in work are there to provide them with a constant cash machine !
Yes, I'm afraid you're right. I've been wondering how things will change once we've all died off.
I think if removing the triple lock could see the savings put into social care that might be less toxic but I think there’s now such levels of cynicism amongst the public that they’ll think the money will just disappear into a black hole .
"The commander in chief was reportedly told that the mullahs might not agree to go gently into the night, but he seems to have waved away such concerns because he was so convinced that the Iranian regime would collapse almost immediately. According to The Wall Street Journal, when General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned the president that a U.S. attack would prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, Trump “told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.” "
...
"[Putin and Trump] made classic strategic errors. They engaged in what analysts call “scriptwriting”: They decided what they wanted to happen, and then wrote out a kind of script in which their adversaries would dutifully play their part and recite their lines. They also both seem to have ignored the standard war-gaming caution to plan for what the enemy can do, not for what you would prefer that it do."
Before the battle of Midway, some impudent juniors in the IJN won the war game of the battle, playing the Americans.
They were told to apologise for their rudeness.
History then proceeded.
Those juniors worked on the premise that the American carriers wouldn’t be coming from Pearl Harbor but somewhere closer to Midway.
They had this strange idea that the stupid Americans would work out that Midway was a target and reinforce it. But that would ruin The Plan! So it could not happen.
Even more comic - the supply chain analysis showed the IJN that they could not re0supply a garrison on Midway. So even if they captured it, the Americans would have it back. Quite rapidly.
Oh, and their invasion force hadn't got tracked landing craft. So the plan was for the invading force to wade ashore, over miles of coral in water ranging from waist deep to over their heads. While the American Marines, onshore, picked their teeth or something.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
Trump is in danger of dissatisfying everyone.
Those who don't want foreign wars. Those who want the Iranian regime destroyed. Those who hate higher prices.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
He can always point to Khamenei as job done, even if nothing else changes much (albeit with Iran's military capacity having taken a beating as well).
He could say that God spoke to him in his dreams and has told him its time to be nice to the Iranians and the MAGA crowd would be fine with that. The rest of the world will continue to think him pretty insane. He doesn't need to any particular justification to stop the war, just as he didn't need one to start the war. What he says defines the truth and accepted position for 40% of Americans regardless.
Of course people believe in the magic money tree. Bar the odd rarity there's nearly always a budget deficit. Regardless of whether the economy is good or bad or whether the tax take is high or low, the government is almost certainly borrowing more than it is raising in taxes or other revenues, and frankly it's just a case of whether they're borrowing more or less in units of very large numbers.
To your average person, magic money tree. You can't do that with your credit card.
The reality is obviously much more complex and nuanced than that, but you can hardly blame folk for thinking it. Analogies like "well think of making your household budget balance up" are clearly bollocks because the government almost never balances it up themselves, and even in a good year the national debt continues to go up, just a bit slower, and yet the whole system continues to trundle on. That's almost the literal definition of magic money tree.
The fact that there's some imaginary line in the sand when ultimately even this state of affairs can't continue is almost by-the-by.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
I coined the term "de-escalation dominance" a couple of weeks ago to describe the problem that he faces when he is no longer in control of events and doesn't have the ability to end it and move on to another news cycle.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
Trump is in danger of dissatisfying everyone.
Those who don't want foreign wars. Those who want the Iranian regime destroyed. Those who hate higher prices.
He's obviously been spending too long with Starmer, who has made getting the worst of all possible worlds his main characteristic.
Voters believe in the Magic Money Tree, and it's partner, the Reform Fairy - where money for X can always be found through vague references to 'reform' or 'efficiency', predicated on the assumption no one has ever thought about making things more efficient before.
And because they do, politicians rely on both, and we'll be screwed.
I’m coming to the view that there are people who would rather be enslaved than see an end to the triple lock.
What a fool Osborne was to create it.
Well there was at least one PBer who pointed that out 15 years ago.
And also predicted that student tuition fees would also end in disaster.
However, that PBer was told that any such problems would be decades away and would be sorted out beforehand.
Before my time but I hope the PBer in question isn't taking this as compelling evidence that whatever he or she is saying in the present day is freighted with any particular significance.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
The question was "could" not "should". You might think the government could afford to keep the triple lock (borrow more) but that doesn't mean they should.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
I coined the term "de-escalation dominance" a couple of weeks ago to describe the problem that he faces when he is no longer in control of events and doesn't have the ability to end it and move on to another news cycle.
Can I term the term "tedious term" to describe "de-escalation dominance"?
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
I coined the term "de-escalation dominance" a couple of weeks ago to describe the problem that he faces when he is no longer in control of events and doesn't have the ability to end it and move on to another news cycle.
Can I term the term "tedious term" to describe "de-escalation dominance"?
"Tedious term" is already taken to describe Keir Starmer's term in Downing Street.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
I coined the term "de-escalation dominance" a couple of weeks ago to describe the problem that he faces when he is no longer in control of events and doesn't have the ability to end it and move on to another news cycle.
Can I term the term "tedious term" to describe "de-escalation dominance"?
"Tedious term" is already taken to describe Keir Starmer's term in Downing Street.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
I coined the term "de-escalation dominance" a couple of weeks ago to describe the problem that he faces when he is no longer in control of events and doesn't have the ability to end it and move on to another news cycle.
Can I term the term "tedious term" to describe "de-escalation dominance"?
No. It's already been taken by the Starmer premiership...
Voters believe in the Magic Money Tree, and it's partner, the Reform Fairy - where money for X can always be found through vague references to 'reform' or 'efficiency', predicated on the assumption no one has ever thought about making things more efficient before.
And because they do, politicians rely on both, and we'll be screwed.
I’m coming to the view that there are people who would rather be enslaved than see an end to the triple lock.
What a fool Osborne was to create it.
Well there was at least one PBer who pointed that out 15 years ago.
And also predicted that student tuition fees would also end in disaster.
However, that PBer was told that any such problems would be decades away and would be sorted out beforehand.
Before my time but I hope the PBer in question isn't taking this as compelling evidence that whatever he or she is saying in the present day is freighted with any particular significance.
It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is
The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore
Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack
Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present
On the Triple lock - this points out the problem.
We need the OBR to put an appropriate delay between retail and wage inflation so that there is a suitable gain in the OBR’s budget model if you destroy the lock. At the moment it doesn’t exist so there is no benefit in destroying it
There was an interesting podcast from someone (IFS?) about this a few months back.
The problem with the triple lock is primarily that it's calculated annually without any smoothing. If inflation hits 10% one year, and wages also grow at 10% the same year, the triple lock goes up 10%. If inflation goes up 10% one year and wages 10% the following year, then the triple lock goes up 21%. despite inflation and wages having only gone up 10%.
The effect is also really difficult to model into the future, as not only do you have to predict the broad trends of the future (difficult), but you also have to know how closely wage spikes will lag inflation (virtually impossible). If you get a full blown wage-price spiral going, the triple lock doesn't outpace either by much, whereas a short sharp shock in inflation, followed by a matching spike in wage growth 12 months later rockets the triple lock upwards.
As a result, most of the government modeling of the triple lock assumes that wage growth and inflation move together within the same financial year, which makes the triple lock seem fairly inexpensive. (The more I discover about treasury modeling, the more I realise we're governed by imbeciles.)
This in turn means that if the chancellor cans the triple lock, on paper it doesn't save much money, so they can't do what all recent chancellors are won't to do as soon as any "extra" cash arrives, and immediately rush off and spend loads more (or if one is very lucky, even cut taxes a little), as the OBR won't credit them with any extra "headroom*" for binning the triple lock.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, with all it's current volatility, the state pension keeps rocketing upwards. But that's different, because the modeling keeps saying that won't happen in the future....!
* "Headroom" - the tiny difference between the obscene amount the chancellor is borrowing, and the obscene amount of borrowing at which it is judged the bond market will completely take fright.
I suspect the OBR will be needed to address the serious nature of this issue with no easy answers
OBR clowns have never got a forecast right and will not be changing soon.
What chance any end to the conflict without boots on the ground?
Given his supporters believe whatever he says, Trump can simply stop at any time and declare victory. The war stops when he gets bored, not when some particular objective is met or some place in Iran seized by boots on the ground.
Trump is in danger of dissatisfying everyone.
Those who don't want foreign wars. Those who want the Iranian regime destroyed. Those who hate higher prices.
He's obviously been spending too long with Starmer, who has made getting the worst of all possible worlds his main characteristic.
Given that the only British politicians Trump has met recently are Starmer, Mandelson and Truss I can understand why he thinks the UK has gone down in the world.
"At least 107 fuel stations across the state of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia have run out of diesel as panic buying has outstripped supply, premier Chris Minns said today."
Well I’m expecting the price of petrol to come down next month.
How’s about you guys?
I don't give a F**k either way
Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand A recent internal assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency that was circulating inside the Pentagon in recent weeks determined that Iran could potentially keep the passage shut for anywhere from one to six months, four sources familiar with the document told CNN. But White House and Pentagon officials insisted that the assessment — particularly the longer end timeframe, which some consider a worst-case scenario — was not being seriously considered.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
No, just keep it for basic rate income tax paying pensioners and remove it for those pensioners whose incomes pay higher or additional rate income tax
How on earth are you planning on administering that ? Does every pensioner in the land either have to submit a P60 to HMRC or complete a self assesment form ?!?
Even if they did do you then adjust the pension for the following year based on the prior year's tax return ? And if you're adjusting for the triple lock element, how are you uprating the higher rate paying pensioner's pensions - what's your mechanism for that.
This quite honestly is the maddest idea ever.
Well Labour have managed to remove WFA for pensioners earning £35k or over annually now, so it can be done
If you are getting anything over the basic pension, you are paying tax, now.
I'm proposing to lock the personal allowance together with the state pension, as well
so
1) If you have just the state pension and nothing else - no tax 2) If you have the state pension and a bit more - you need to be paying tax, right now*. Under my plan, the tax would be exactly the same. 3) If you have a state pension and stuff adding up to more than 50K - you are paying tax now. Under my proposal, you will be paying more tax
*The pension is reaching the personal allowance very soon.
This simply illustrates the absurdity of requiring people to pay tax (at whatever rate) on income far below ordinary decent subsistence levels, at half the minimum or living wage, and well below what hundreds of thousands of households on benefits receive without being taxed at all. It is not great that a Labour government should be complicit in continuing this miserable state of affairs without any plan to ameliorate it.
overdue big time that benefits , rent and council tax being paid etc should be taxed same as working people/pensioners.
If the Iran invasion is illegal then facilitating attacks on them by the Americans and Israelis is also illegal.
Starmer out.
It’s a grey area .
Because it’s classed as protecting ships from being attacked so goes down as defensive in No 10 . I wish we had nothing at all to do with any of this but as opposed to the rest of Europe Starmer can’t afford a total rupture with the US administration.
So lunatic Trump and sleazy war criminal Netanyahu have the world to the brink of economic ruin. Do the right-wing shits who live on this blog still support this madness?
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
As I keep saying -
1) Merge employee NI And IT 2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially. 3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable. 4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....
Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
another halfwit happy that scroungers on benefits get off tax free but want pensioners, most of whom will have worked all their lives , to get hammered
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
As I keep saying -
1) Merge employee NI And IT 2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially. 3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable. 4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....
Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
another halfwit happy that scroungers on benefits get off tax free but want pensioners, most of whom will have worked all their lives , to get hammered
If they'd spent a bit of time at school rather than working down pit from birth perhaps they might understand.
It’s difficult to interpret hypothetical polling in a way. The question asks “could”, but it appears some people are answering “should”. The Government could do any of those things, and I don’t think, pace @TSE , that this proves they believe in the magic money tree. Voters might be answering “could if they raised taxes”.
I’d be interested to see a breakdown of how much each of these things actually costs, although several of them have lots of unknowns (it depends how long the Iran War goes on). The second least supported (bail out universities in financial trouble) would be fairly cheap, certainly compared to most of that list.
I’m also interested in how wording affects these. “Bail out” sounds very negative. If you changed the wording there to “Support…”, how much would the answers shift?
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
As I keep saying -
1) Merge employee NI And IT 2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially. 3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable. 4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....
Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
another halfwit happy that scroungers on benefits get off tax free but want pensioners, most of whom will have worked all their lives , to get hammered
If they'd spent a bit of time at school rather than working down pit from birth perhaps they might understand.
"working down pit from birth"!!!!
LUUUUUUUUUUUXXXXXXURRRRRRRRYYYYY
We worked down't pit since before our grandparents were conceived.
It’s difficult to interpret hypothetical polling in a way. The question asks “could”, but it appears some people are answering “should”. The Government could do any of those things, and I don’t think, pace @TSE , that this proves they believe in the magic money tree. Voters might be answering “could if they raised taxes”.
I’d be interested to see a breakdown of how much each of these things actually costs, although several of them have lots of unknowns (it depends how long the Iran War goes on). The second least supported (bail out universities in financial trouble) would be fairly cheap, certainly compared to most of that list.
I’m also interested in how wording affects these. “Bail out” sounds very negative. If you changed the wording there to “Support…”, how much would the answers shift?
It is just clickbait polling for cheap headlines. If they had the slightest interest in asking robust, informative questions this would not see the light of day.
It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is
The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore
Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack
Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present
I don’t think your first two sentences necessarily follow. We could raise taxes: do the public want that? We can only accuse the great British public of economic illiteracy if they want more spending without raising taxes or borrowing.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.
Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day
You are not facing upto this crisis
Everything has changed
I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.
The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
But no political party is proposing scrapping it as it would make them unelectable.
We are more likely to have a government propose a 100% higher rate and additional rate income tax, a massive increase in corporation tax, a mansion tax of 100% for expensive properties over £1 million or universal credit scrapped and replaced with foodbanks than the triple lock is to be scrapped
You still haven't understood about being electable
There is no money so hard choices lie ahead, no more so than if you had maxed out your credit and ignored your bank manager to live within your means
As I also said and you yet again ignored Labour and the Greens would increase tax on business and higher earners and the wealthy rather than scrap the triple lock and the Tories and Jenrick for Reform too it seems cut universal credit and scrap net zero and EDI schemes rather than scrap the triple lock
As Reform have discovered in local government, scrapping EDI schemes saves approximately £0.
If the Iran invasion is illegal then facilitating attacks on them by the Americans and Israelis is also illegal.
Starmer out.
It’s a grey area .
Because it’s classed as protecting ships from being attacked so goes down as defensive in No 10 . I wish we had nothing at all to do with any of this but as opposed to the rest of Europe Starmer can’t afford a total rupture with the US administration.
No policy change at all
No RAF involvement.
Attacking Iranian sites that are military and attacking Straits of Hormuz
If Ships start moving oil will be another win for Statesman Starmer.
I'm thankful not to be one of those having to make choices for the country. I know pensioners who are already finding it impossible to make ends meet, fulltime working people ditto, longterm sick/disabled ditto.
I know far too many longterm sick/disabled people who are utterly genuine 'cases', in some cases whole families of them. Not ill-wishing anybody but sometimes it seems our society has turned Darwin on its head.
Sometimes it seems that comment sections up and down the internet are filled with innumerate geniuses who have calculated that £600 a night to lock someone away for years on end in a hospital is cheaper, kinder, and better than giving someone £100 a week in PIP. People that they won't employ and pretend it's out of kindness, and when they are employed, a system is set up that makes employment insurance unaffordable for this subset such that they can only fall back on benefits. Which everyone cries about them getting.
Ultimately we already have UBI - 40% of Universal Credit claimants are in work, many of whom are working in the brutally overstretched sectors of Health and Social Care that haven't had pay rises in 15 years. One OT said to me, "the drive for efficiency leads no room for compassion, but the only thing that will help us survive the drive for effifciency is compassion," and we had a good laugh about that.
sounds like bollox unless they were paid above current minimum wage 15 years ago, usual leftie claptrap.
"The commander in chief was reportedly told that the mullahs might not agree to go gently into the night, but he seems to have waved away such concerns because he was so convinced that the Iranian regime would collapse almost immediately. According to The Wall Street Journal, when General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned the president that a U.S. attack would prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, Trump “told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.” "
...
"[Putin and Trump] made classic strategic errors. They engaged in what analysts call “scriptwriting”: They decided what they wanted to happen, and then wrote out a kind of script in which their adversaries would dutifully play their part and recite their lines. They also both seem to have ignored the standard war-gaming caution to plan for what the enemy can do, not for what you would prefer that it do."
Before the battle of Midway, some impudent juniors in the IJN won the war game of the battle, playing the Americans.
They were told to apologise for their rudeness.
History then proceeded.
The same thing almost happened when Zhukov war gamed the Germans capturing Moscow, and Stalin’s lackeys condemned him. But, Stalin was more in touch with reality than Trump is.
Donald Trump is away with the fairies and a horrible human being, ignorant, imbecilic and cruel, all of these things being blindingly obvious, yet at the same time he is the duly elected leader of a (very) large and (very) prosperous western democracy. There's no precedent for this. We can talk till the cows come home about grocery bills, EDI and other woke excesses, partisanship and polarisation, charisma, Dem mistakes, social media, post truth, Musk, Russian interference, borders etc, but it remains fundamentally inexplicable by the metrics that we are used to dealing in. Anybody thinking they understand it in those terms is imo kidding themselves. To really understand it you'd need to get America on the couch. Create the right therapeutic atmosphere and ask, "Ok, so why did you really do it? You're safe here. Tell me." And then listen.
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.
At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.
Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
As I keep saying -
1) Merge employee NI And IT 2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially. 3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable. 4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....
Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.
The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
You merge employee NI and IT
That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.
This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.
So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
Which again could be done by removing the 2% employee NI rate that NI goes to after £967 a week on to income tax to make income tax 42%.
Easily done and that 2% higher rate NI is a relatively recent invention anyway
The idea is to remove employee NI from the board entirely. So no games to play avoiding NI.
Sensible in many ways. However, two things would follow.
1 Better-off pensioners would pay more than now. 2 The headline rate of income tax would be higher than now.
Both of these are electorally as popular as being told to find a stick, sharpen it and then poke yourself in the eye with the sharp stick. (Sharp sticks and eye pokers were both cut in the coalition austerity round).
The problem remains- we all sort of Intuit that fiscal rebalancing is needed in general, but not in particular.
It's about messaging
1) You announce the abolition of Income Tax and Employee National Insurance 2) You announce the Introduction of the Save The NHS, Protect Cute Kittens and Kick Racists In The Goolies Tax. 3) Any opposition to the proposals is framed as you hate the NHS, you want to kill kittens and you like racists.
A friend worked in charity fundraising. She said the perfect charity to fundraise for would be Kittens for Kids with Kancer (except for the initials).
So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.
Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
The question was "could" not "should". You might think the government could afford to keep the triple lock (borrow more) but that doesn't mean they should.
they need to clear out all the crazy government spending. Minimum 10% efficiency saving across the board , including all benefits, except defense. Illegal immigration minimum 50% cut on hosting them. Should be very simple
It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is
The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore
Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack
Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present
I don’t think your first two sentences necessarily follow. We could raise taxes: do the public want that? We can only accuse the great British public of economic illiteracy if they want more spending without raising taxes or borrowing.
Comments
It won't, because I think politics has now become a zero sum game and a personal free-for-all.
Scoop: Moscow proposed a deal to the U.S. under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence information with Iran if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia. U.S. said no.
https://x.com/vonderburchard/status/2035019953695265003?s=20
East West Rail from Bicester to Bletchley, I have no idea...
And because they do, politicians rely on both, and we'll be screwed.
Given that a 'staycation' means staying in the actual house where I live for my holiday, I don't need to 'book' it.
*whiny, pedantic tone off. For now*
What a fool Osborne was to create it.
Nonsense.
After death, your brain will be kept in a jar. Working forever.....
I interviewed President Trump by phone. He doubled down on his anger at NATO and said all we need is “numbers” in the Strait to open it, Iran has nothing left. Also, when asked if Japan gave any assurance of military support given that 90 percent of their oil comes from
the Strait, the President say they have Constitutional restraints but would be there for us if we needed them, saying “Japan is better ally than NATO.” More to come on The Story. 3 pm and on The Five tonight.
Even Maga officials: Sir...no, please, no.
But in all seriousness he and Vance will be loving the chance to kneecap NATO more than they already have, and given the level of support he still has among the GOP, a large chunk of america is being permanently poisoned against the alliance, so they are achieving their aim.
They have definitely soured against him again (not that they ever went fully positive), but they still probably hate him less than they do Keir.
And also predicted that student tuition fees would also end in disaster.
However, that PBer was told that any such problems would be decades away and would be sorted out beforehand.
Representative Lauren Boebert, the longtime Maga supporter, has publicly broken with the Trump administration over its latest military spending request, citing the economic struggles of her constituents as her primary reason for opposition.
In an interview with CNN, Boebert stated she would not support the Pentagon’s $200bn war supplemental, a massive funding package intended to sustain the ongoing conflict with Iran. The package is aimed at replenishing US munition stockpiles and funding Operation Epic Fury, but Boebert argued that such a high price tag is unjustifiable while people in Colorado face a rising cost of living.
“I am a ‘no’. I’ve already told leadership I am a ‘no’ on any war supplementals. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere,” Boebert said. “I am tired of the industrial-war complex getting all of our hard-earned tax dollars. I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America-first policies right now, and that? I’m not doing that.”
There is no way Trump is getting this $200bn from Congress.
How long he can continue without it I don't know.
Something for everyone.
I’m beginning to view some pensioners as hostage takers . If any party dare touch a single penny of the triple lock the hostage loses a finger with worse to come ! Or in this case they punish them at the ballot box .
The attitude seems to be those in work are there to provide them with a constant cash machine !
...
"[Putin and Trump] made classic strategic errors. They engaged in what analysts call “scriptwriting”: They decided what they wanted to happen, and then wrote out a kind of script in which their adversaries would dutifully play their part and recite their lines. They also both seem to have ignored the standard war-gaming caution to plan for what the enemy can do, not for what you would prefer that it do."
More from Tom Nichols at:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/trump-iran-war/686470/?gift=otEsSHbRYKNfFYMngVFweBDkBYlSGKPROp7ZY5gr9oU&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
(seems to be a gift article at the moment)
They were told to apologise for their rudeness.
History then proceeded.
Whoever comes in, the public will need to be consciously trained to become more resilient, the way that socialism has consciously trained them (and trains them still) to become ever more helpless and dependent.
Ultimately we already have UBI - 40% of Universal Credit claimants are in work, many of whom are working in the brutally overstretched sectors of Health and Social Care that haven't had pay rises in 15 years. One OT said to me, "the drive for efficiency leads no room for compassion, but the only thing that will help us survive the drive for effifciency is compassion," and we had a good laugh about that.
I have a horrible feeling that too many people would demand a lower cap now and that there would be too many politicians willing to pander to them.
I was getting it at 135.9p three weeks ago.
Would you prefer to see more / fewer / zero rich people in the UK ?
- Go on expensive holidays
- buy a fast car
- pick up a younger squeeze.
Suggest you do the last one first to guarantee if you die within 5 years, at least you'll be happy.
Whereas many of those who appear to be well off but without a grip on reality are not as well off as they think they are.
Diesel is not.
By this time next year I'll have completed my transformation into @Leon. Younger squeeze may have to wait though.
How it is distributed is often the question.
Plus shortages in supply will be here iminantly apparently (according to someone who manages an Asda Petrol station locally)
FILL/FILL/FILL
Even more comic - the supply chain analysis showed the IJN that they could not re0supply a garrison on Midway. So even if they captured it, the Americans would have it back. Quite rapidly.
Oh, and their invasion force hadn't got tracked landing craft. So the plan was for the invading force to wade ashore, over miles of coral in water ranging from waist deep to over their heads. While the American Marines, onshore, picked their teeth or something.
Those who don't want foreign wars.
Those who want the Iranian regime destroyed.
Those who hate higher prices.
To your average person, magic money tree. You can't do that with your credit card.
The reality is obviously much more complex and nuanced than that, but you can hardly blame folk for thinking it. Analogies like "well think of making your household budget balance up" are clearly bollocks because the government almost never balances it up themselves, and even in a good year the national debt continues to go up, just a bit slower, and yet the whole system continues to trundle on. That's almost the literal definition of magic money tree.
The fact that there's some imaginary line in the sand when ultimately even this state of affairs can't continue is almost by-the-by.
You might think the government could afford to keep the triple lock (borrow more) but that doesn't mean they should.
EDIT Oooh spooky.....small minds think alike?
Starmer out.
The quizmaster asked:
“ Take That’s first album had a four word title.
The first two words were ‘ Take That’. What were the second two?”
After a lengthy silence a wee Glaswegian stood up and said “Ya bastard?”
https://x.com/TheStalwart/status/2035018412141732151
"At least 107 fuel stations across the state of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia have run out of diesel as panic buying has outstripped supply, premier Chris Minns said today."
@NatashaBertrand
A recent internal assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency that was circulating inside the Pentagon in recent weeks determined that Iran could potentially keep the passage shut for anywhere from one to six months, four sources familiar with the document told CNN. But White House and Pentagon officials insisted that the assessment — particularly the longer end timeframe, which some consider a worst-case scenario — was not being seriously considered.
https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/2035048222901903410
Because it’s classed as protecting ships from being attacked so goes down as defensive in No 10 . I wish we had nothing at all to do with any of this but as opposed to the rest of Europe Starmer can’t afford a total rupture with the US administration.
https://x.com/trussliz/status/2035054822420881501
I’d be interested to see a breakdown of how much each of these things actually costs, although several of them have lots of unknowns (it depends how long the Iran War goes on). The second least supported (bail out universities in financial trouble) would be fairly cheap, certainly compared to most of that list.
I’m also interested in how wording affects these. “Bail out” sounds very negative. If you changed the wording there to “Support…”, how much would the answers shift?
LUUUUUUUUUUUXXXXXXURRRRRRRRYYYYY
We worked down't pit since before our grandparents were conceived.
I can't tell you for legal reasons...
No RAF involvement.
Attacking Iranian sites that are military and attacking Straits of Hormuz
If Ships start moving oil will be another win for Statesman Starmer.
https://x.com/i/status/2035046718509563959