I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
I like him. I understand the comments from those on here about him not understanding financial subtleties, and from a betting POV he's too trustingly faithful in betting markets. But his prescription ("tax wealth not work") appeals and yes, I understand there's a problem with that but as I keep saying existing ideology has stopped working so we need to try something new. Or do you think setting up internment camps in Camden is a good idea? We are run by an idiot who thinks Britain's not broken and that all that was necessary was to obey the law nicely, and Starmer has pissed away a landslide majority. The status quo is not working, so heterodox policies must be considered.
I think you're being rather naive. Gary Stevenson is a lobbyist. He is part of a widespread campaign supported by groups funded by people like Soros and Elizabeth Disney. He hasn't deployed his limited knowledge of economics and come up with the idea of a wealth tax, he's using his limited knowledge of economics to argue for a wealth tax as the answer to everything. If you think anything coming from those sorts of quarters is going to result in any upliftment or empowerment of the poor, I have a bridge to sell you.
2½-minute run-through from Tony Travers & the Standard.
Received Reform and Tory leaflets through the door the last couple of days.
Surprised Newham wasn't mentioned but the likes of Pollcheck and Britain Elects let alone Tony Travers are clearly not keeping up with what is happening on the ground.
The Mayoral count on Thursday evening will give an indication of what we can expect when the Council seats are counted on Friday.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
It is worth noting several of his children would not agree with you.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
I am not bothered about his politics in this conversation only that he seems to do a very bad job of working with people and has - in my view - run companies into the ground.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
I like him. I understand the comments from those on here about him not understanding financial subtleties, and from a betting POV he's too trustingly faithful in betting markets. But his prescription ("tax wealth not work") appeals and yes, I understand there's a problem with that but as I keep saying existing ideology has stopped working so we need to try something new. Or do you think setting up internment camps in Camden is a good idea? We are run by an idiot who thinks Britain's not broken and that all that was necessary was to obey the law nicely, and Starmer has pissed away a landslide majority. The status quo is not working, so heterodox policies must be considered.
He seems like a bit of a narcissist who is upset that being a supposedly star trader for Citibank (disputed by colleauges) didn't make him as rich as the Duke of Westminster.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
Even before he bought Twitter I said he an utter twat for his actions over the rescue of those young Thai footballers trapped in the cave and he called one of the rescuers a paedo.
But I note you're praising Kemi Badenoch for calling out the cancer of antisemitism yet you're happy to defend a man who posted antisemitic content like this.
Elon Musk agrees with tweet accusing Jewish people of ‘hatred against whites’
Owner of X responds to antisemitic tweet calling it ‘the actual truth’ and criticizes Anti-Defamation League
Elon Musk tweeted his fervent agreement with an antisemitic statement on Wednesday night.
A tweet posted by @breakingbaht on Wednesday night read: “Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.”
The billionaire owner and CTO of X, formerly Twitter, responded the same evening: “You have said the actual truth.” In another reply, he wrote: “I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind.” Musk has feuded with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) before, threatening to sue over its accounting of hate speech on his social media network.
The ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, decried Musk’s endorsement of the antisemitic conspiracy. He wrote: “At a time when antisemitism is exploding in America and surging around the world, it is indisputably dangerous to use one’s influence to validate and promote antisemitic theories. #NeverIsNow.”
1. It's a massive dead cat to distract from Farage's five mil, and it's working
2. It's designed to annoy all the right noisy people, and it's working (see point 1)
and
3. It ensures the objectors must say why having a migrant camp in your nice liberal Green-voting area is suddenly so bad, rather than just dumping them in the poorest parts of the country, for the white working classes to deal with, which is what we have done until now
Agreed on (1) and (2), and many are getting suckered in.
Disagree on (3). I think most objectors are anti the idea in principle, rather than just on grounds of it being near them. I think most of the noise today is that the salience of Reform's proposal for camps is once again high, rather than the specific proposal of siting them in Green areas, which just comes across as cheap politicking.
My main objection is the (probably) unintended consequences. I agree with @taz that the use of 'concentration camps' is inappropriate after the Nazis, let's say, developed that idea rather further than the British did.
However, even if we call them internment camps it still further normalises the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers. This probably isn't intentional but is a very dangerous road to go further down.
Question is whether "Vote to put the camps somewhere else" polls better than "Vote not to have the camps in the first place". Either way it moves the discussion away from Reform's probable preferred battleground of "Vote to do something [slightly vague] about immigrants"
It also may remind people what they dislike about Reform: that they are manipulative, nasty and unserious.
Reform absolutely do intend to normalise the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
I’d say they’re very serious and this is smart politics as it’s totally neutered the dodgy £5 million story.
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
The richest man in the World cutting relatively modest amounts from the USAID budget going to the poorest people in the world, for purely performative reasons, and without any legal authority to do so, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands who would otherwise be alive, is nasty. Actually I think it's evil.
Apart from being thoroughly nasty, isn't the Yusuf/Farage plan for detention centre in 'Green' constituencies somewhat flawed? Given that any seats won by the Greens are likely to be on c. 30-35% of the vote, those who voted Reform in that constituency would be 'punished' as well. See Gorton and Denton for example.
On reflection, I've no idea why I'm even giving such an unpleasant, unworkable and bizarre policy proposal the time of day.
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
Absolutely massive result David. Rangers were poor in that second half.
Should Celtic lose the old firm game next week, and Hearts get at least a draw the previous day against Motherwell, they could seal the title at home with a win against Falkirk. I think they need to try and win it before the final game at Celtic Park
Apart from being thoroughly nasty, isn't the Yusuf/Farage plan for detention centre in 'Green' constituencies somewhat flawed? Given that any seats won by the Greens are likely to be on c. 30-35% of the vote, those who voted Reform in that constituency would be 'punished' as well. See Gorton and Denton for example.
On reflection, I've no idea why I'm even giving such an unpleasant, unworkable and bizarre policy proposal the time of day.
Reform supporters on here are saying that it's mainly about deflecting attention from Nigel's bung, and who am I to argue?
Kemi coming right out and attacking the jewish attacks.
"Let's be honest about what is happening. Certain groups (in particular but not solely Islamic Extremists) are creating a climate of fear and intimidation that is normalising Jew hatred. I will never stand for that. Governments have spent too long hand-wringing, making excuses and hoping it would go away. It is time to call this what it is: a national emergency in our attitude, our urgency and our response."
Yep. Farage being bought and sold for £5M by a crypto king ought, by rights, to have been devastating. But we live in changed times.
The deportations stuff, however, removes any pretence that NF is just a dissatisfied right-wing Tory with, basically, conventional views and a conventional approach to politics.
This is something new in British politics, just as MAGA is to rhe US. Farage is no Mrs Thatcher in drag.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
I like him. I understand the comments from those on here about him not understanding financial subtleties, and from a betting POV he's too trustingly faithful in betting markets. But his prescription ("tax wealth not work") appeals and yes, I understand there's a problem with that but as I keep saying existing ideology has stopped working so we need to try something new. Or do you think setting up internment camps in Camden is a good idea? We are run by an idiot who thinks Britain's not broken and that all that was necessary was to obey the law nicely, and Starmer has pissed away a landslide majority. The status quo is not working, so heterodox policies must be considered.
I think you're being rather naive. Gary Stevenson is a lobbyist. He is part of a widespread campaign supported by groups funded by people like Soros and Elizabeth Disney. He hasn't deployed his limited knowledge of economics and come up with the idea of a wealth tax, he's using his limited knowledge of economics to argue for a wealth tax as the answer to everything. If you think anything coming from those sorts of quarters is going to result in any upliftment or empowerment of the poor, I have a bridge to sell you.
1. It's a massive dead cat to distract from Farage's five mil, and it's working
2. It's designed to annoy all the right noisy people, and it's working (see point 1)
and
3. It ensures the objectors must say why having a migrant camp in your nice liberal Green-voting area is suddenly so bad, rather than just dumping them in the poorest parts of the country, for the white working classes to deal with, which is what we have done until now
Agreed on (1) and (2), and many are getting suckered in.
Disagree on (3). I think most objectors are anti the idea in principle, rather than just on grounds of it being near them. I think most of the noise today is that the salience of Reform's proposal for camps is once again high, rather than the specific proposal of siting them in Green areas, which just comes across as cheap politicking.
My main objection is the (probably) unintended consequences. I agree with @taz that the use of 'concentration camps' is inappropriate after the Nazis, let's say, developed that idea rather further than the British did.
However, even if we call them internment camps it still further normalises the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers. This probably isn't intentional but is a very dangerous road to go further down.
Question is whether "Vote to put the camps somewhere else" polls better than "Vote not to have the camps in the first place". Either way it moves the discussion away from Reform's probable preferred battleground of "Vote to do something [slightly vague] about immigrants"
It also may remind people what they dislike about Reform: that they are manipulative, nasty and unserious.
Reform absolutely do intend to normalise the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
I’d say they’re very serious and this is smart politics as it’s totally neutered the dodgy £5 million story.
I mean Reform is unserious about government in the same way as Trump is.
But thanks to FPTP they could indeed win a workable number of seats for Farage to occupy Downing Street despite alienating most of the electorate.
Yep. Farage being bought and sold for £5M by a crypto king ought, by rights, to have been devastating. But we live in changed times.
The deportations stuff, however, removes any pretence that NF is just a dissatisfied right-wing Tory with, basically, conventional views and a conventional approach to politics.
This is something new in British politics, just as MAGA is to rhe US. Farage is no Mrs Thatcher in drag.
Of course the top sentence should be more problematic but the asylum seekers announcement is classic bait and switch and has neutered it.
I’m convinced this announcement wouldn’t have happened had the £5 million story not come out
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
1. It's a massive dead cat to distract from Farage's five mil, and it's working
2. It's designed to annoy all the right noisy people, and it's working (see point 1)
and
3. It ensures the objectors must say why having a migrant camp in your nice liberal Green-voting area is suddenly so bad, rather than just dumping them in the poorest parts of the country, for the white working classes to deal with, which is what we have done until now
Agreed on (1) and (2), and many are getting suckered in.
Disagree on (3). I think most objectors are anti the idea in principle, rather than just on grounds of it being near them. I think most of the noise today is that the salience of Reform's proposal for camps is once again high, rather than the specific proposal of siting them in Green areas, which just comes across as cheap politicking.
My main objection is the (probably) unintended consequences. I agree with @taz that the use of 'concentration camps' is inappropriate after the Nazis, let's say, developed that idea rather further than the British did.
However, even if we call them internment camps it still further normalises the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers. This probably isn't intentional but is a very dangerous road to go further down.
Question is whether "Vote to put the camps somewhere else" polls better than "Vote not to have the camps in the first place". Either way it moves the discussion away from Reform's probable preferred battleground of "Vote to do something [slightly vague] about immigrants"
It also may remind people what they dislike about Reform: that they are manipulative, nasty and unserious.
Reform absolutely do intend to normalise the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
I’d say they’re very serious and this is smart politics as it’s totally neutered the dodgy £5 million story.
If that is the theory, it's tosh, isn't it? I mean, NF Nigel has still been given five million spondoolicks and still hasn't justified it.
There's no rule that says that, in anything but the shortest timescale, journalists can't circle back to an old story. See Boris and parties, or Starmer and Mandy.
Dead cat theory is largely rubbish- it just leads to a pile of dead cats on your table. Which start to smell of... dead cats.
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
1. It's a massive dead cat to distract from Farage's five mil, and it's working
2. It's designed to annoy all the right noisy people, and it's working (see point 1)
and
3. It ensures the objectors must say why having a migrant camp in your nice liberal Green-voting area is suddenly so bad, rather than just dumping them in the poorest parts of the country, for the white working classes to deal with, which is what we have done until now
Agreed on (1) and (2), and many are getting suckered in.
Disagree on (3). I think most objectors are anti the idea in principle, rather than just on grounds of it being near them. I think most of the noise today is that the salience of Reform's proposal for camps is once again high, rather than the specific proposal of siting them in Green areas, which just comes across as cheap politicking.
My main objection is the (probably) unintended consequences. I agree with @taz that the use of 'concentration camps' is inappropriate after the Nazis, let's say, developed that idea rather further than the British did.
However, even if we call them internment camps it still further normalises the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers. This probably isn't intentional but is a very dangerous road to go further down.
Question is whether "Vote to put the camps somewhere else" polls better than "Vote not to have the camps in the first place". Either way it moves the discussion away from Reform's probable preferred battleground of "Vote to do something [slightly vague] about immigrants"
It also may remind people what they dislike about Reform: that they are manipulative, nasty and unserious.
Reform absolutely do intend to normalise the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
I’d say they’re very serious and this is smart politics as it’s totally neutered the dodgy £5 million story.
I mean Reform is unserious about government in the same way as Trump is.
But thanks to FPTP they could indeed win a workable number of seats for Farage to occupy Downing Street despite alienating most of the electorate.
Well Ive always felt reform are happier sniping from the sidelines and don’t really want power, just a large chunk of MPs.
The moment they have power is the moment they have accountability. Same with the Greens.
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
Kemi coming right out and attacking the jewish attacks.
"Let's be honest about what is happening. Certain groups (in particular but not solely Islamic Extremists) are creating a climate of fear and intimidation that is normalising Jew hatred. I will never stand for that. Governments have spent too long hand-wringing, making excuses and hoping it would go away. It is time to call this what it is: a national emergency in our attitude, our urgency and our response."
As interesting was her refusal on GB News to "do a deal" with Reform against Labour.
It seems equidistance is now confirmed and she sees her Conservative Party as the credible alternative to Reform (and Labour).
That's brave from 17-18% of the vote (according to polls) and 500 losses on Thursday and it reminds me of what a former Lib Dem leader might have said.
To be honest, we always have to remember the old adage what a politician says before a vote is cast is often very different from what they do when they are all counted.
1. It's a massive dead cat to distract from Farage's five mil, and it's working
2. It's designed to annoy all the right noisy people, and it's working (see point 1)
and
3. It ensures the objectors must say why having a migrant camp in your nice liberal Green-voting area is suddenly so bad, rather than just dumping them in the poorest parts of the country, for the white working classes to deal with, which is what we have done until now
Agreed on (1) and (2), and many are getting suckered in.
Disagree on (3). I think most objectors are anti the idea in principle, rather than just on grounds of it being near them. I think most of the noise today is that the salience of Reform's proposal for camps is once again high, rather than the specific proposal of siting them in Green areas, which just comes across as cheap politicking.
My main objection is the (probably) unintended consequences. I agree with @taz that the use of 'concentration camps' is inappropriate after the Nazis, let's say, developed that idea rather further than the British did.
However, even if we call them internment camps it still further normalises the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers. This probably isn't intentional but is a very dangerous road to go further down.
Question is whether "Vote to put the camps somewhere else" polls better than "Vote not to have the camps in the first place". Either way it moves the discussion away from Reform's probable preferred battleground of "Vote to do something [slightly vague] about immigrants"
It also may remind people what they dislike about Reform: that they are manipulative, nasty and unserious.
Reform absolutely do intend to normalise the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
I’d say they’re very serious and this is smart politics as it’s totally neutered the dodgy £5 million story.
If that is the theory, it's tosh, isn't it? I mean, NF Nigel has still been given five million spondoolicks and still hasn't justified it.
There's no rule that says that, in anything but the shortest timescale, journalists can't circle back to an old story. See Boris and parties, or Starmer and Mandy.
Dead cat theory is largely rubbish- it just leads to a pile of dead cats on your table. Which start to smell of... dead cats.
Don’t agree with your comment but I love the word Spondoolicks. Which I last came across in a Hale and Pace sketch.
Give me the dosh, Tosh The money, sonny The spondoolicks………..Hoolicks
A comedy duo who don’t get the recognition they deserve and I use to look like one of them. Before AD took over.
I am in favour of a small wealth tax (say 30-50bps), so long as it's combined with a reduction in the top rate of income tax back down to 40%. I would also remove the absurd distortion around removal of the personal allowance and the whole NI 'hole'.
I think it could be done in a way that is positive for incentives.
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
Ha, 20 years, more like 40!
You're right. 1985 Aberdeen. Wow, that's a long time.
I am in favour of a small wealth tax (say 30-50bps), so long as it's combined with a reduction in the top rate of income tax back down to 40%. I would also remove the absurd distortion around removal of the personal allowance and the whole NI 'hole'.
I think it could be done in a way that is positive for incentives.
How would it work ?
On assets above how much ?
Would it include DC pensions ?
My real worry is,you tax something that’s inelastic or you want less of. Surely we want to encourage wealth and wealth creation ?
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
Don't know anything about this bloke, but just a comment on the bit I have italicised. It isn't impossible to tax wealth apart from IHT, it isn't impossible to make the IHT wealth tax more or less unavoidable, it isn't even impossible to tax unrealised gains. It isn't impossible to tax property properly progressively. It isn't impossible to tax benefits. It isn't impossible to tax pensioners as highly as workers. It isn't impossible to stop giving innumerable billions in tax breaks like ISAs and pensions.
I am not commending any of these (except the taxing pensioners one) but there truly are gigantic untaxed options.
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
Even before he bought Twitter I said he an utter twat for his actions over the rescue of those young Thai footballers trapped in the cave and he called one of the rescuers a paedo.
But I note you're praising Kemi Badenoch for calling out the cancer of antisemitism yet you're happy to defend a man who posted antisemitic content like this.
Elon Musk agrees with tweet accusing Jewish people of ‘hatred against whites’
Owner of X responds to antisemitic tweet calling it ‘the actual truth’ and criticizes Anti-Defamation League
Elon Musk tweeted his fervent agreement with an antisemitic statement on Wednesday night.
A tweet posted by @breakingbaht on Wednesday night read: “Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.”
The billionaire owner and CTO of X, formerly Twitter, responded the same evening: “You have said the actual truth.” In another reply, he wrote: “I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind.” Musk has feuded with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) before, threatening to sue over its accounting of hate speech on his social media network.
The ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, decried Musk’s endorsement of the antisemitic conspiracy. He wrote: “At a time when antisemitism is exploding in America and surging around the world, it is indisputably dangerous to use one’s influence to validate and promote antisemitic theories. #NeverIsNow.”
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
Ha, 20 years, more like 40!
1985-1986 season to be precise
Actually the year before. Under a manager called Alex Ferguson. Whatever happened to him?
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
Absolutely massive result David. Rangers were poor in that second half.
Should Celtic lose the old firm game next week, and Hearts get at least a draw the previous day against Motherwell, they could seal the title at home with a win against Falkirk. I think they need to try and win it before the final game at Celtic Park
Both old firm teams have been so poor this season
If Hearts with their other games , even if Celtic beat them they win league on goal difference. They lost it in last game in teh 80's , hopefully they hang on this time, then Dunfermline to beat Celtic in the Cup Final and it will be historic that the old firm have not won anything in a season.
1. It's a massive dead cat to distract from Farage's five mil, and it's working
2. It's designed to annoy all the right noisy people, and it's working (see point 1)
and
3. It ensures the objectors must say why having a migrant camp in your nice liberal Green-voting area is suddenly so bad, rather than just dumping them in the poorest parts of the country, for the white working classes to deal with, which is what we have done until now
Agreed on (1) and (2), and many are getting suckered in.
Disagree on (3). I think most objectors are anti the idea in principle, rather than just on grounds of it being near them. I think most of the noise today is that the salience of Reform's proposal for camps is once again high, rather than the specific proposal of siting them in Green areas, which just comes across as cheap politicking.
My main objection is the (probably) unintended consequences. I agree with @taz that the use of 'concentration camps' is inappropriate after the Nazis, let's say, developed that idea rather further than the British did.
However, even if we call them internment camps it still further normalises the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers. This probably isn't intentional but is a very dangerous road to go further down.
4) Exposes yet again that Reform are British Trump.
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
Ha, 20 years, more like 40!
1985-1986 season to be precise
Actually the year before. Under a manager called Alex Ferguson. Whatever happened to him?
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
Absolutely massive result David. Rangers were poor in that second half.
Should Celtic lose the old firm game next week, and Hearts get at least a draw the previous day against Motherwell, they could seal the title at home with a win against Falkirk. I think they need to try and win it before the final game at Celtic Park
Both old firm teams have been so poor this season
Rangers can do us a big favour next weekend. And they will be up for it.
I'm starting to believe that it just might happen.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
I like him. I understand the comments from those on here about him not understanding financial subtleties, and from a betting POV he's too trustingly faithful in betting markets. But his prescription ("tax wealth not work") appeals and yes, I understand there's a problem with that but as I keep saying existing ideology has stopped working so we need to try something new. Or do you think setting up internment camps in Camden is a good idea? We are run by an idiot who thinks Britain's not broken and that all that was necessary was to obey the law nicely, and Starmer has pissed away a landslide majority. The status quo is not working, so heterodox policies must be considered.
I think you're being rather naive. Gary Stevenson is a lobbyist. He is part of a widespread campaign supported by groups funded by people like Soros and Elizabeth Disney. He hasn't deployed his limited knowledge of economics and come up with the idea of a wealth tax, he's using his limited knowledge of economics to argue for a wealth tax as the answer to everything. If you think anything coming from those sorts of quarters is going to result in any upliftment or empowerment of the poor, I have a bridge to sell you.
How evil of rich people like Soros and Disney to go around spreading the message that they should be taxed more! How dastardly!
Are Stevenson, Soros and Disney all also part of the conspiracy that’s faking climate change?
Hearts come from behind (yet again) to beat Rangers and put them out of the title race. Outstanding performance. Scotland so needs a non old firm winner after about 20 years. And Hearts deserve it.
Absolutely massive result David. Rangers were poor in that second half.
Should Celtic lose the old firm game next week, and Hearts get at least a draw the previous day against Motherwell, they could seal the title at home with a win against Falkirk. I think they need to try and win it before the final game at Celtic Park
Both old firm teams have been so poor this season
Rangers can do us a big favour next weekend. And they will be up for it.
I'm starting to believe that it just might happen.
Fingers crossed, be devastating for them to slip up now having led the league from the very beginning. Motherwell if on their game are very hard to beat.
Apart from being thoroughly nasty, isn't the Yusuf/Farage plan for detention centre in 'Green' constituencies somewhat flawed? Given that any seats won by the Greens are likely to be on c. 30-35% of the vote, those who voted Reform in that constituency would be 'punished' as well. See Gorton and Denton for example.
On reflection, I've no idea why I'm even giving such an unpleasant, unworkable and bizarre policy proposal the time of day.
You're giving it the time of day because Reform wants you to.
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
It is worth noting several of his children would not agree with you.
Several? All of the ones that have come of adulthood.
Then there’s the Nazi salutes, the frequent racism, the lying, the drug problems, calling that diver a “pedo guy”, etc. I don’t know why @Sandpit doesn’t think any of that is “nasty”.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
It is worth noting several of his children would not agree with you.
Several? All of the ones that have come of adulthood.
Then there’s the Nazi salutes, the frequent racism, the lying, the drug problems, calling that diver a “pedo guy”, etc. I don’t know why @Sandpit doesn’t think any of that is “nasty”.
You could have mentioned the friendship with Epstein he insists he absolutely didn't have.
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
He was imprisoned and then moved abroad.
He tried, postwar, to revive his political career and stood for election a couple of times.
I remember Anthony Howard relating how a young Michael Heseltine heckled Mosley at one of his postwar meetings. One of Hezza's earliest political actions.
115Undue influence (1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
115Undue influence (1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
1. It's a massive dead cat to distract from Farage's five mil, and it's working
2. It's designed to annoy all the right noisy people, and it's working (see point 1)
and
3. It ensures the objectors must say why having a migrant camp in your nice liberal Green-voting area is suddenly so bad, rather than just dumping them in the poorest parts of the country, for the white working classes to deal with, which is what we have done until now
Agreed on (1) and (2), and many are getting suckered in.
Disagree on (3). I think most objectors are anti the idea in principle, rather than just on grounds of it being near them. I think most of the noise today is that the salience of Reform's proposal for camps is once again high, rather than the specific proposal of siting them in Green areas, which just comes across as cheap politicking.
My main objection is the (probably) unintended consequences. I agree with @taz that the use of 'concentration camps' is inappropriate after the Nazis, let's say, developed that idea rather further than the British did.
However, even if we call them internment camps it still further normalises the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers. This probably isn't intentional but is a very dangerous road to go further down.
Question is whether "Vote to put the camps somewhere else" polls better than "Vote not to have the camps in the first place". Either way it moves the discussion away from Reform's probable preferred battleground of "Vote to do something [slightly vague] about immigrants"
It also may remind people what they dislike about Reform: that they are manipulative, nasty and unserious.
Reform absolutely do intend to normalise the dehumanisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
I’d say they’re very serious and this is smart politics as it’s totally neutered the dodgy £5 million story.
If that is the theory, it's tosh, isn't it? I mean, NF Nigel has still been given five million spondoolicks and still hasn't justified it.
There's no rule that says that, in anything but the shortest timescale, journalists can't circle back to an old story. See Boris and parties, or Starmer and Mandy.
Dead cat theory is largely rubbish- it just leads to a pile of dead cats on your table. Which start to smell of... dead cats.
Two bodies are investigating Farage’s failure to report, the Electoral Commission and the relevant Parliamentary committee. They will make announcements in due course. That’s two events when the news can circle back to this. I doubt both are going to say, “it’s all fine, nothing to see here”. So, we could get a drip-drip of each stage of two investigations getting coverage.
Then, what are their conclusions? Any significant action will be big news. Ian Paisley Jnr got a 30-day suspension for failing to declare two family holidays paid for by the Sri Lankan Government. (That then triggered a recall petition, the only ever to fail.) £5 million is more than the cost of two family holidays to Sri Lanka, I presume.
Kemi coming right out and attacking the jewish attacks.
"Let's be honest about what is happening. Certain groups (in particular but not solely Islamic Extremists) are creating a climate of fear and intimidation that is normalising Jew hatred. I will never stand for that. Governments have spent too long hand-wringing, making excuses and hoping it would go away. It is time to call this what it is: a national emergency in our attitude, our urgency and our response."
As interesting was her refusal on GB News to "do a deal" with Reform against Labour.
It seems equidistance is now confirmed and she sees her Conservative Party as the credible alternative to Reform (and Labour).
That's brave from 17-18% of the vote (according to polls) and 500 losses on Thursday and it reminds me of what a former Lib Dem leader might have said.
To be honest, we always have to remember the old adage what a politician says before a vote is cast is often very different from what they do when they are all counted.
I've been very critical of her in the past (both the stance on Iran and her response to the Ramadan event in Trafalgar Square were serious misjudgements) but she's had a good last week. This and the going after Labour on welfare spending, where Labour are particularly vulnerable, demonstrate that she's managing to get her attacks on target at last.
It'll be interesting to see how her party does on Thursday. For sure, expectations couldn't be lower. But longer term, there is an opportunity to both benefit from Reform's likely implosion while occupying the middle-ground.
D'Hondt method doesn't do any favours to the libdems or whoever ends up 5th in a constituency.. Also it would help if they could score some more votes.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
It is worth noting several of his children would not agree with you.
Several? All of the ones that have come of adulthood.
Then there’s the Nazi salutes, the frequent racism, the lying, the drug problems, calling that diver a “pedo guy”, etc. I don’t know why @Sandpit doesn’t think any of that is “nasty”.
You could have mentioned the friendship with Epstein he insists he absolutely didn't have.
Well, he wanted a friendship with Epstein, but Epstein turned him down!
115Undue influence (1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
Even before he bought Twitter I said he an utter twat for his actions over the rescue of those young Thai footballers trapped in the cave and he called one of the rescuers a paedo.
But I note you're praising Kemi Badenoch for calling out the cancer of antisemitism yet you're happy to defend a man who posted antisemitic content like this.
Elon Musk agrees with tweet accusing Jewish people of ‘hatred against whites’
Owner of X responds to antisemitic tweet calling it ‘the actual truth’ and criticizes Anti-Defamation League
Elon Musk tweeted his fervent agreement with an antisemitic statement on Wednesday night.
A tweet posted by @breakingbaht on Wednesday night read: “Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.”
The billionaire owner and CTO of X, formerly Twitter, responded the same evening: “You have said the actual truth.” In another reply, he wrote: “I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind.” Musk has feuded with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) before, threatening to sue over its accounting of hate speech on his social media network.
The ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, decried Musk’s endorsement of the antisemitic conspiracy. He wrote: “At a time when antisemitism is exploding in America and surging around the world, it is indisputably dangerous to use one’s influence to validate and promote antisemitic theories. #NeverIsNow.”
The 30s? Wasn't that when someone called Mosley finally abandoned the mainstream parties and set up the New Party, winning a few defectors along the way? Whatever happened to him?
He was imprisoned and then moved abroad.
He tried, postwar, to revive his political career and stood for election a couple of times.
I remember Anthony Howard relating how a young Michael Heseltine heckled Mosley at one of his postwar meetings. One of Hezza's earliest political actions.
Another of Heseltine's early political actions was to get out of national service by standing for parliament.
115Undue influence (1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
Spiritual injury???????
My chakras have been quite bruised.
Harsh. You can get cream for that. Oozy chakras be bad
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
It is worth noting several of his children would not agree with you.
Several? All of the ones that have come of adulthood.
Then there’s the Nazi salutes, the frequent racism, the lying, the drug problems, calling that diver a “pedo guy”, etc. I don’t know why @Sandpit doesn’t think any of that is “nasty”.
You could have mentioned the friendship with Epstein he insists he absolutely didn't have.
Well, he wanted a friendship with Epstein, but Epstein turned him down!
How could you be such a vile human being even Epstein doesn't want to know you?
115Undue influence (1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
115Undue influence (1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
Spiritual injury???????
It's a particular reference to Northern Irish politicians scaring the bejesus out of their opponents.
115Undue influence (1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
Spiritual injury???????
For example threatening to excommunicate anyone who voted for Farage, I guess ?
In communities which still take organised religion seriously, such things can matter.
I hate to use this phrase but if the Green economic platform is being advised by Gary Stephenson then they must be thick.
Gary doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unrealised gains and income that’s going into my bank account every month. He seeks to think they are the same thing.
I’d never heard of this guy before today, but he seems to be a parody or playing a character. There’s no way he actually worked in the City while being so uninformed about very basic economics.
He’s been on my radar for a while but I’ve only listened to him at length recently.
It becomes very clear very quickly that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
He didn’t seem to be aware that trusts do pay taxes. I think he honestly believed they were completely free of taxes (in which case, why isn’t he being one?), even though they do.
All his ideas seem to be that there’s plenty of money to tax just for some inconceivable reason nobody has thought to do it before.
I guess some people lap this stuff up but put your critical thinking hat on and it quickly goes up in smoke.
At length?
It took less than two minutes to discover that he doesn’t understand the difference between capital asset values and personal employment income, before anything about trusts.
There’s genuine leftwing arguments to be made about higher asset taxes, but this guy isn’t one to make them.
I watched him on a podcast. I’d only heard tiny 5 second clips about “tax the rich” before.
He really does seem to think that Elon Musk is swimming in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck, with ‘wealth’ being a zero-sum game, as opposed to the serial entrepreneur who’s built more than half a dozen business from nothing and generated massive amounts of GDP and ‘wealth’ for others.
I agree with you in principle but Musk is a nasty individual and a bad choice to have used.
Musk is possibly the best example, because he switched his politics after the American left went insane.
The biggest cultural turning point in recent years was when Elon bought Twitter.
Do you think he’s a nasty individual or not?
Some of the dealings he had at PayPal would suggest that he is.
I wouldn’t describe him as ‘nasty’, especially not based on comments from two decades ago, but accept that he’s a divisive character because of his endorsement of, and work for, the current US president.
It is worth noting several of his children would not agree with you.
Several? All of the ones that have come of adulthood.
Then there’s the Nazi salutes, the frequent racism, the lying, the drug problems, calling that diver a “pedo guy”, etc. I don’t know why @Sandpit doesn’t think any of that is “nasty”.
You could have mentioned the friendship with Epstein he insists he absolutely didn't have.
Well, he wanted a friendship with Epstein, but Epstein turned him down!
How could you be such a vile human being even Epstein doesn't want to know you?
Heck, that's Amanda Spielman levels of awfulness.
I think, to be fair to Musk, it was more that he was too unimportant at the time. These days, I’m sure, if he was still around, Epstein would be happily inviting Musk to his private island.
Comments
The Mayoral count on Thursday evening will give an indication of what we can expect when the Council seats are counted on Friday.
But I note you're praising Kemi Badenoch for calling out the cancer of antisemitism yet you're happy to defend a man who posted antisemitic content like this.
Elon Musk agrees with tweet accusing Jewish people of ‘hatred against whites’
Owner of X responds to antisemitic tweet calling it ‘the actual truth’ and criticizes Anti-Defamation League
Elon Musk tweeted his fervent agreement with an antisemitic statement on Wednesday night.
A tweet posted by @breakingbaht on Wednesday night read: “Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.”
The billionaire owner and CTO of X, formerly Twitter, responded the same evening: “You have said the actual truth.” In another reply, he wrote: “I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind.” Musk has feuded with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) before, threatening to sue over its accounting of hate speech on his social media network.
The ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, decried Musk’s endorsement of the antisemitic conspiracy. He wrote: “At a time when antisemitism is exploding in America and surging around the world, it is indisputably dangerous to use one’s influence to validate and promote antisemitic theories. #NeverIsNow.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/16/elon-musk-antisemitic-tweet-adl
Telegraph:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJnf_DDTfIVCIUMGbZANm87K0kRv21RBs
Daily Mail:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPGifL5wOEZx-_acCZnIEDTysXsA0hvuc
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPGifL5wOEZx8NnMNfd9FjIz0rm469Bpk
https://x.com/tynewearelects/status/2051325850167976226?s=61
Labour 25 (-39)
Newham Independents 23 (+23)
Greens 4 (+2)
Too Close to Call: 14
The five Wards I can't call are Beckton, Forest Gate North, Forest Gate South, Plaistow West and Wall End.
@JavierBlas
·
36m
"I'm confident on the other side of this the world's going to be awash in oil." — US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
https://x.com/JavierBlas/status/2051357757509345451
===
No doubt true seeing as every man and his dog is now scrambling to switch to anything electric as an alternative from being held hostage like this.
On reflection, I've no idea why I'm even giving such an unpleasant, unworkable and bizarre policy proposal the time of day.
Should Celtic lose the old firm game next week, and Hearts get at least a draw the previous day against Motherwell, they could seal the title at home with a win against Falkirk. I think they need to try and win it before the final game at Celtic Park
Both old firm teams have been so poor this season
Kemi Badenoch
@KemiBadenoch
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2051355889567719822
"Let's be honest about what is happening. Certain groups (in particular but not solely Islamic Extremists) are creating a climate of fear and intimidation that is normalising Jew hatred. I will never stand for that. Governments have spent too long hand-wringing, making excuses and hoping it would go away. It is time to call this what it is: a national emergency in our attitude, our urgency and our response."
Delighted to confirm that Sam Ashworth-Hayes has left the Telegraph to join Reform UK as Senior Policy Adviser.
The deportations stuff, however, removes any pretence that NF is just a dissatisfied right-wing Tory with, basically, conventional views and a conventional approach to politics.
This is something new in British politics, just as MAGA is to rhe US. Farage is no Mrs Thatcher in drag.
But thanks to FPTP they could indeed win a workable number of seats for Farage to occupy Downing Street despite alienating most of the electorate.
I’m convinced this announcement wouldn’t have happened had the £5 million story not come out
There's no rule that says that, in anything but the shortest timescale, journalists can't circle back to an old story. See Boris and parties, or Starmer and Mandy.
Dead cat theory is largely rubbish- it just leads to a pile of dead cats on your table. Which start to smell of... dead cats.
The moment they have power is the moment they have accountability. Same with the Greens.
It seems equidistance is now confirmed and she sees her Conservative Party as the credible alternative to Reform (and Labour).
That's brave from 17-18% of the vote (according to polls) and 500 losses on Thursday and it reminds me of what a former Lib Dem leader might have said.
To be honest, we always have to remember the old adage what a politician says before a vote is cast is often very different from what they do when they are all counted.
Give me the dosh, Tosh
The money, sonny
The spondoolicks………..Hoolicks
A comedy duo who don’t get the recognition they deserve and I use to look like one of them. Before AD took over.
I am in favour of a small wealth tax (say 30-50bps), so long as it's combined with a reduction in the top rate of income tax back down to 40%. I would also remove the absurd distortion around removal of the personal allowance and the whole NI 'hole'.
I think it could be done in a way that is positive for incentives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrQS10cb0A
On assets above how much ?
Would it include DC pensions ?
My real worry is,you tax something that’s inelastic or you want less of. Surely we want to encourage wealth and wealth creation ?
Sonia Sodha
@soniasodha
Two welcome examples of moral clarity in relation to anti-semitism today. 1. This video from the Labour party.
Sonia Sodha
@soniasodha
·
48m
2. This from Kemi Badonoch. It's refreshing to see politicians stick to their guns like this in front of voters.
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2051364402654277802
I am not commending any of these (except the taxing pensioners one) but there truly are gigantic untaxed options.
🌼Plaid Cymru 34 seats
➡️Reform UK 34 seats
🌹Labour 14 seats
🌳Conservatives 9 seats
💚Greens 5 seats
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2051226566894448876?s=20
I think not.
"Can't we do another interview with Attenborough about monkeys, darlings?"
I'm starting to believe that it just might happen.
And possibly bad news for the Telegraph too.
Are Stevenson, Soros and Disney all also part of the conspiracy that’s faking climate change?
Everything you need to know about England's remotest town, Millom, Cumberland. Birthplace of the mighty Norman Nicholson.
They're not daft.
Then there’s the Nazi salutes, the frequent racism, the lying, the drug problems, calling that diver a “pedo guy”, etc. I don’t know why @Sandpit doesn’t think any of that is “nasty”.
https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/welsh_polling/senedd_polling/senedd-2026-seat-calculator
They make 42. Two fewer for Reform. One more for the Tories.
Edit. But that's some steal.
15-14 Wu at the break.
I remember Anthony Howard relating how a young Michael Heseltine heckled Mosley at one of his postwar meetings. One of Hezza's earliest political actions.
115Undue influence
(1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting; ...
Then, what are their conclusions? Any significant action will be big news. Ian Paisley Jnr got a 30-day suspension for failing to declare two family holidays paid for by the Sri Lankan Government. (That then triggered a recall petition, the only ever to fail.) £5 million is more than the cost of two family holidays to Sri Lanka, I presume.
It'll be interesting to see how her party does on Thursday. For sure, expectations couldn't be lower. But longer term, there is an opportunity to both benefit from Reform's likely implosion while occupying the middle-ground.
She seems to be framing her justifiable critique of anti-Semites in terms of hostility to Muslims. That is a very bad idea.
Heck, that's Amanda Spielman levels of awfulness.
In communities which still take organised religion seriously, such things can matter.