Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Technically 5. 403/81 = 4.97 (Needs to round down to 4) and Starmer as sitting PM doesn't need 81. But yes realistically 3 is pretty much the absolute max.
I imagine that somebody like a Burnham who could get more than 81 you don't want to do a James Cleverly and play it too cute and find it blows up in your face.
There’s definitely something in the idea that Manchester choose to elect a Manchester man for the PM. That will be very appetising IMHO.
Green vote already looks like it’s on the way to collapse. So Burnham needs to make a push on immigration.
Your regular reminder that Makerfield != Manchester.
But your point arguably still holds - That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens elects a That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens man for PM.
Burnham will struggle to make a push on immigration. It is one of his blindspots.
I call those places Rugby League land.
I once got into so much trouble for calling people from St Helens ‘plastic Scousers’.
It is rugby league* land - these people care deeply about rugby league in a way much of the country doesn't really get - but this territory is even more specific than that. Wigan, Warrington and St. Helens are the medium sized rugby league towns between the big cities of Manchester and Liverpool, but I'm talking here about the small towns between the medium sized towns: Ashton-in-Makerfield, Hindley, Leigh**, Golborne, Newton-Le-Willows, Haydock. It's deeply inward looking. Everyone knows each other in a way that they don't quite in the medium-sized towns like Wigan.
*though I think I am right that actually more people PLAY rugby union, and of course Orrell, which was briefly in rugby union's top division in the early years after the establishment of such things in the 80s, and supplied several England players - rugby league is something to watch. Baffling to me because to my eyes League is a rather less engaging and exciting game. Nowadays of course many kids play both - my daughter plays rugby on the fringes of this zone and many girls play rugby league on a Saturday and rugby union on a Sunday in the way that kids elsewhere will play football on a Saturday and rugby (union) on a Sunday.
**granted Leigh has its own professional club but so chippy is Leigh about being overshadowed by big-city Wigan that I tentatively put it in this bracket.
I was brought up to watch and play Rugby Union but now in the evening of my days I much prefer League. Too many stoppages and restarts in Union. League keeps going.
The casting process for the new James Bond has officially begun, after years of anticipation and speculation about who will take over from Daniel Craig as 007.
"The search for the next James Bond is under way," Amazon MGM Studios said in a statement, external.
The only way the Labour right can stop Burnham becoming leader & PM. Make him James Bond.
Towns are handsome and well kept. Farms look fat and happy. I hear there may be pockets of poverty up here, as well. I hear talk of a place called “Teesside” whatever that is. But this bit of t’North has a quiet but deep prosperity
Pleasing
Friday....people "WFH" day where H stands for hotel.
In the rural north they all go to stay at posh hotels on Friday? This is news to me but welcome news for hospitality
I think again the k shaped economy. People on the upper end of the income scale have done very well over the past 5 years, might well have sold their homes and moved to a cheaper place and only expected in the office 2-3 days a week. I imagine all those on £99k a year have also pushed hard for more work life balance rather than take a pay rise. Thus they have money and opportunity to have extended weekends away.
Northumberland is an interesting county, socially. In much of Britain, you might get something akin to a bell curve - most people in the middle, a few poor, a few rich - with the 'middle' landing in different places. Northumberland is a bit more bipolar - lots of quite poor people in places like Ashington, and quite a surprising amount of really quite rich people, including proper-old-money-rich. This is changing a bit - areas like Blyth are gradually changing from solidly working class mining towns to places for commuters to Newcastle to live, and the poor are not so poor as they were - but it's still always felt a slightly unusual mix to me.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
The casting process for the new James Bond has officially begun, after years of anticipation and speculation about who will take over from Daniel Craig as 007.
"The search for the next James Bond is under way," Amazon MGM Studios said in a statement, external.
Amidst the whirl of politics, KC3 went to Golders Green and was almost mobbed by anxious but happy Jewish people. Grateful for his presence. Imagine a Labour prime minister trying to do this. Oh wait he did and was screamed at
“Today, in response to a series of smaller attacks on Jews, our British monarch has just taken on a role as patron of the Community Security Trust. He has visited this site of an attempted massacre to shake hands with a traumatised and fearful Jewish community. He has, in short, behaved like a mensch. His visit tells a different story about how British institutions and leaders relate to this country’s Jewish community.”
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
Farage and Polanski certainly do seem to march in tandem.
I still think that, maybe, just maybe, they are figments of the protest vote and may fade as we approach the Big Vote. Then, again, Trump.
The casting process for the new James Bond has officially begun, after years of anticipation and speculation about who will take over from Daniel Craig as 007.
"The search for the next James Bond is under way," Amazon MGM Studios said in a statement, external.
It’s obviously going to be Andy Burnham.
My wife says that when she thinks of Andy Burnham, Scott Tracey (of TB1) rather than James Bond comes to mind.
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I doubt most of the public think person-to-person gifts should be taxable at all. See inheritance tax.
The casting process for the new James Bond has officially begun, after years of anticipation and speculation about who will take over from Daniel Craig as 007.
"The search for the next James Bond is under way," Amazon MGM Studios said in a statement, external.
It’s obviously going to be Andy Burnham.
Morning, P.B
Ed Miliband could be the first boffin bond. There's also Janet Philipson, who could be the firsr female Bond. I think the question really is whether Daniel Craig can delay the leadership election any longer.
Farage was claiming it was a reward for Brexit rather than a gift or inducement to stand yesterday.
Farage has already claimed two different explanations for the money. What will matter is what the various relevant authorities conclude was the real reason.
Council of Europe (which includes the UK) agrees new declaration around ECHR and migration. Exactly the sort of action many people have been demanding.
The link does not explain if this has any effect on the court. Do you know?
If not, it's about as much "action" as a local council resolution on Gaza.
The Uk gov link posted earlier looks a little more promising.
We will have to wait and see what effect it has on the UK courts.
Towns are handsome and well kept. Farms look fat and happy. I hear there may be pockets of poverty up here, as well. I hear talk of a place called “Teesside” whatever that is. But this bit of t’North has a quiet but deep prosperity
Pleasing
Friday....people "WFH" day where H stands for hotel.
In the rural north they all go to stay at posh hotels on Friday? This is news to me but welcome news for hospitality
I think again the k shaped economy. People on the upper end of the income scale have done very well over the past 5 years, might well have sold their homes and moved to a cheaper place and only expected in the office 2-3 days a week. I imagine all those on £99k a year have also pushed hard for more work life balance rather than take a pay rise. Thus they have money and opportunity to have extended weekends away.
Northumberland is an interesting county, socially. In much of Britain, you might get something akin to a bell curve - most people in the middle, a few poor, a few rich - with the 'middle' landing in different places. Northumberland is a bit more bipolar - lots of quite poor people in places like Ashington, and quite a surprising amount of really quite rich people, including proper-old-money-rich. This is changing a bit - areas like Blyth are gradually changing from solidly working class mining towns to places for commuters to Newcastle to live, and the poor are not so poor as they were - but it's still always felt a slightly unusual mix to me.
In last year's county council elections, it was a bit of an outlier, as the Tory vote held up and they emerged as largest party. Unusual for the NE.
(More like the Scottish borders where, similarly, the Tories remain strong - though, obviously, the dynamic is different with the threat of the SNP uniting unionists behind the strongest unionist party)
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I only skimmed that story yesterday but it seemed to be that the donation had a “legitimate “ UK source but in fact had come from someone else furth of the UK. Unless there is evidence that Jenrick knew that this doesn’t seem to be his problem.
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
Farage was claiming it was a reward for Brexit rather than a gift or inducement to stand yesterday.
Farage has already claimed two different explanations for the money. What will matter is what the various relevant authorities conclude was the real reason.
Do they have prove a reason or just the perception?
Council of Europe (which includes the UK) agrees new declaration around ECHR and migration. Exactly the sort of action many people have been demanding.
The link does not explain if this has any effect on the court. Do you know?
If not, it's about as much "action" as a local council resolution on Gaza.
You need to read the links linked to from the link. Here, for example, is the full text of the declaration.
There's quite a lot of putting the court in its place in the text. And also, quite strong messages to domestic courts to apply restraint when applying the court's rulings. https://rm.coe.int/pdf/09125948802bc2cc
For example, this bit on healthcare:
..Where an individual is being expelled or extradited, the quality of accessible healthcare in the receiving State should only give rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in very exceptional circumstances described in the Court’s case law. There is no obligation for the returning State to alleviate the disparities between its own healthcare system and the level of treatment existing in the receiving State. 26. Where an individual is being expelled, the domestic courts and authorities in this context may benefit from further guidance on how to assess a range of individual socio-economic factors under Article 3 that may have a negative impact on that individual’s situation, but do not each in isolation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, and on the role the general socioeconomic situation in the receiving country plays in that assessment. ...
29. In light of the foregoing, caution should be exercised when applying case law of the Court, including by the domestic courts, concerning the situation in a State Party when assessing whether the expulsion or extradition of an individual to a non-State Party would violate a State’s obligations under Article 3 of theConvention. ..
I think it quite significant, as it is a consensus of the member states pushing back (in diplomatic language)at what they fairly clearly see as court overreach, rather than just one of them complaining about a decision.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
Miliband and Streeting have a fair bit of support.
Amidst the whirl of politics, KC3 went to Golders Green and was almost mobbed by anxious but happy Jewish people. Grateful for his presence. Imagine a Labour prime minister trying to do this. Oh wait he did and was screamed at
“Today, in response to a series of smaller attacks on Jews, our British monarch has just taken on a role as patron of the Community Security Trust. He has visited this site of an attempted massacre to shake hands with a traumatised and fearful Jewish community. He has, in short, behaved like a mensch. His visit tells a different story about how British institutions and leaders relate to this country’s Jewish community.”
Charles showing more leadership that Starmer in the US and at home right now. It must be very grating for Labour.
Why would it be grating for Labour? The King is doing his job as head of state. His speech in the US will certainly have been written with substantial government input. Being able to do this kind of subtle diplomacy abroad and non partisan unifying stuff at home is precisely why having a constitutional monarchy is so great.
Obvious point to make - but the monarchy is designed to be a unifying force - and it's certainly in its interests to be seen as such. Politicians, not so much.
KCIII has always, and sensibly, made a point of reaching out to minorities, of whatever type. In general, this attention is greatly appreciated, as you can see by the line-up of beaming community reps at royal visits. Helps to bind the nation in a way which, say, a President Farage is unlikely to achieve. Of course, "national treasures", like David Attenborough might do equally well but these kind of people are invariably keen monarchists anyway.
How dare anyone question Farage or indeed the £12m given to the party. You're all jealous. The REAL scandal is the free pair of geps given to Starmer. Bloody biased fake news media.
Towns are handsome and well kept. Farms look fat and happy. I hear there may be pockets of poverty up here, as well. I hear talk of a place called “Teesside” whatever that is. But this bit of t’North has a quiet but deep prosperity
Pleasing
Friday....people "WFH" day where H stands for hotel.
In the rural north they all go to stay at posh hotels on Friday? This is news to me but welcome news for hospitality
I think again the k shaped economy. People on the upper end of the income scale have done very well over the past 5 years, might well have sold their homes and moved to a cheaper place and only expected in the office 2-3 days a week. I imagine all those on £99k a year have also pushed hard for more work life balance rather than take a pay rise. Thus they have money and opportunity to have extended weekends away.
Northumberland is an interesting county, socially. In much of Britain, you might get something akin to a bell curve - most people in the middle, a few poor, a few rich - with the 'middle' landing in different places. Northumberland is a bit more bipolar - lots of quite poor people in places like Ashington, and quite a surprising amount of really quite rich people, including proper-old-money-rich. This is changing a bit - areas like Blyth are gradually changing from solidly working class mining towns to places for commuters to Newcastle to live, and the poor are not so poor as they were - but it's still always felt a slightly unusual mix to me.
In last year's county council elections, it was a bit of an outlier, as the Tory vote held up and they emerged as largest party. Unusual for the NE.
(More like the Scottish borders where, similarly, the Tories remain strong - though, obviously, the dynamic is different with the threat of the SNP uniting unionists behind the strongest unionist party)
Houses can cost in excess of £500k in Blyth now. The rate of change is massive, even in the last 13 years since I worked on a Blyth industrial estate. Likewise, the new trainline to Newcastle from Ashington will accelerate the gentrification of both Ashington and Newbiggin. It’s already happening.
It wasn’t that long ago that Tory councillors cancelled the planned new County Hall in Ashington because they didn’t fancy commuting from Morpeth
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
That will all be forgotten by this time next week. All of the regards who are going to vote for know he's a grifter and don't care.
It won't. He's going to be dragged through the process if a Parliamentary standards enquiry, which will further highlight his twists and turns on the matter.
Some of the retards ('regards' is a typo ?) won't care. But I doubt that group constitutes a third of the electorate.
Terrifying polling on Muslim views in France, UK, Germany
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination: ~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated ~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious ~25% are fundamentalists ~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
There’s definitely something in the idea that Manchester choose to elect a Manchester man for the PM. That will be very appetising IMHO.
Green vote already looks like it’s on the way to collapse. So Burnham needs to make a push on immigration.
Your regular reminder that Makerfield != Manchester.
But your point arguably still holds - That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens elects a That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens man for PM.
Burnham will struggle to make a push on immigration. It is one of his blindspots.
I call those places Rugby League land.
I once got into so much trouble for calling people from St Helens ‘plastic Scousers’.
It is rugby league* land - these people care deeply about rugby league in a way much of the country doesn't really get - but this territory is even more specific than that. Wigan, Warrington and St. Helens are the medium sized rugby league towns between the big cities of Manchester and Liverpool, but I'm talking here about the small towns between the medium sized towns: Ashton-in-Makerfield, Hindley, Leigh**, Golborne, Newton-Le-Willows, Haydock. It's deeply inward looking. Everyone knows each other in a way that they don't quite in the medium-sized towns like Wigan.
*though I think I am right that actually more people PLAY rugby union, and of course Orrell, which was briefly in rugby union's top division in the early years after the establishment of such things in the 80s, and supplied several England players - rugby league is something to watch. Baffling to me because to my eyes League is a rather less engaging and exciting game. Nowadays of course many kids play both - my daughter plays rugby on the fringes of this zone and many girls play rugby league on a Saturday and rugby union on a Sunday in the way that kids elsewhere will play football on a Saturday and rugby (union) on a Sunday.
**granted Leigh has its own professional club but so chippy is Leigh about being overshadowed by big-city Wigan that I tentatively put it in this bracket.
League lacks the complexity of union. There is no actual scrummaging, so no technique or correct size/shape players needed. No lineouts. All it is is endless one out runs (a bit like how England's Union team sometimes seems to play). And of course rare turnovers to the need to manufacture them after 6 attempts.
Its hard to see what League has going for it, tbh. I've watched a couple of games in the flesh, and I'd argue its better than on TV, but Union knocks it out of the park, both live and on TV.
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I only skimmed that story yesterday but it seemed to be that the donation had a “legitimate “ UK source but in fact had come from someone else furth of the UK. Unless there is evidence that Jenrick knew that this doesn’t seem to be his problem.
There is evidence that his wife knew. If his wife knew, that’s getting closer to him knowing.
The casting process for the new James Bond has officially begun, after years of anticipation and speculation about who will take over from Daniel Craig as 007.
"The search for the next James Bond is under way," Amazon MGM Studios said in a statement, external.
There is a man who will shortly become available, well known for inspiring another great film hero (that lawyer chap in Bridget Jones). Any odds?
A somewhat interesting piece in the Telegraph about "young female far-right influencers" glamming up the movement (this is the Telegraph !).
There's quite a tone of being commercial as well as ideological, like Yaxley-Lennon. The alignment is generally more Restore than Reform, and one was banned from an event by Rupert Lowe. To my eye it is a kind of warmed-over Nick Griffin "smart and approachable" method. That is logical in an age defined by large screens emphasising the visual.
There's also a "remigrate the Jews" thing (where to?), which is an echo of expulsions we used to do in Medieval times.
There's also an "I'm proud of my Anglo-Saxon hair" (dark, long, frizzy), and I'm interested how she knew, since we have very little evidence as to what Anglo-Saxon hair was to the Anglo-Saxon; so that is more of an imagined past.
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
In the same vein, I think dodginess is just as priced in for Polanski.
To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I wish we as an electorate held Green and Reform politicians to the standards that we rightly hold Lab and Con politicians. But it does not appear that we do.
Farage was claiming it was a reward for Brexit rather than a gift or inducement to stand yesterday.
Farage has already claimed two different explanations for the money. What will matter is what the various relevant authorities conclude was the real reason.
Do they have prove a reason or just the perception?
Depends who “they” are. To have broken tax law, I presume they need to prove a reason. In terms of the money not being declared, that’s much easier and probably could just be perception.
There’s definitely something in the idea that Manchester choose to elect a Manchester man for the PM. That will be very appetising IMHO.
Green vote already looks like it’s on the way to collapse. So Burnham needs to make a push on immigration.
Your regular reminder that Makerfield != Manchester.
But your point arguably still holds - That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens elects a That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens man for PM.
Burnham will struggle to make a push on immigration. It is one of his blindspots.
I call those places Rugby League land.
I once got into so much trouble for calling people from St Helens ‘plastic Scousers’.
It is rugby league* land - these people care deeply about rugby league in a way much of the country doesn't really get - but this territory is even more specific than that. Wigan, Warrington and St. Helens are the medium sized rugby league towns between the big cities of Manchester and Liverpool, but I'm talking here about the small towns between the medium sized towns: Ashton-in-Makerfield, Hindley, Leigh**, Golborne, Newton-Le-Willows, Haydock. It's deeply inward looking. Everyone knows each other in a way that they don't quite in the medium-sized towns like Wigan.
*though I think I am right that actually more people PLAY rugby union, and of course Orrell, which was briefly in rugby union's top division in the early years after the establishment of such things in the 80s, and supplied several England players - rugby league is something to watch. Baffling to me because to my eyes League is a rather less engaging and exciting game. Nowadays of course many kids play both - my daughter plays rugby on the fringes of this zone and many girls play rugby league on a Saturday and rugby union on a Sunday in the way that kids elsewhere will play football on a Saturday and rugby (union) on a Sunday.
**granted Leigh has its own professional club but so chippy is Leigh about being overshadowed by big-city Wigan that I tentatively put it in this bracket.
I was brought up to watch and play Rugby Union but now in the evening of my days I much prefer League. Too many stoppages and restarts in Union. League keeps going.
I think union does get bogged down sometimes. There is a particular curse at the moment of 'water' carriers onto the pitch at every conceivable moment, and an awful lot of minor injuries seem to happen (its a tough sport, but these are tough players). That said when its good, you cannot beat union. I'm a Bath season ticket holder and some of the games in the last three years have been the best sport I've ever seen. The level of play in the European Quarter Final against Northampton was Test Match standard. It was breathtakingly good.
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I only skimmed that story yesterday but it seemed to be that the donation had a “legitimate “ UK source but in fact had come from someone else furth of the UK. Unless there is evidence that Jenrick knew that this doesn’t seem to be his problem.
There is evidence that his wife knew. If his wife knew, that’s getting closer to him knowing.
Was his wife not a solicitor bound by client confidentiality and therefore couldn’t tell him? I really can’t stand the man. He’s repulsive. I’d love to be wrong but I don’t see this going anywhere.
Presumably as her son is now 18 she no longer has an interest in that property, so she can reclaim the additional stamp duty. If she has paid up and doesn't claim the refund then HMRC are £40k up
Amidst the whirl of politics, KC3 went to Golders Green and was almost mobbed by anxious but happy Jewish people. Grateful for his presence. Imagine a Labour prime minister trying to do this. Oh wait he did and was screamed at
“Today, in response to a series of smaller attacks on Jews, our British monarch has just taken on a role as patron of the Community Security Trust. He has visited this site of an attempted massacre to shake hands with a traumatised and fearful Jewish community. He has, in short, behaved like a mensch. His visit tells a different story about how British institutions and leaders relate to this country’s Jewish community.”
Charles showing more leadership that Starmer in the US and at home right now. It must be very grating for Labour.
Why would it be grating for Labour? The King is doing his job as head of state. His speech in the US will certainly have been written with substantial government input. Being able to do this kind of subtle diplomacy abroad and non partisan unifying stuff at home is precisely why having a constitutional monarchy is so great.
Obvious point to make - but the monarchy is designed to be a unifying force - and it's certainly in its interests to be seen as such. Politicians, not so much.
KCIII has always, and sensibly, made a point of reaching out to minorities, of whatever type. In general, this attention is greatly appreciated, as you can see by the line-up of beaming community reps at royal visits. Helps to bind the nation in a way which, say, a President Farage is unlikely to achieve. Of course, "national treasures", like David Attenborough might do equally well but these kind of people are invariably keen monarchists anyway.
I never liked Prince Charles. I regard him as not particularly bright, and apparently he can be difficult. However I think part of his issues was waiting for the main gig for 50 years. He seems to have become brilliant at being the monarch, and I can respect him for that, even though I am a republican at heart.
Terrifying polling on Muslim views in France, UK, Germany
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination: ~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated ~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious ~25% are fundamentalists ~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
I’d love to be optimistic but in the face of these numbers it js essentially impossible. We are heading for some kind of reckoning
Allthoigh those figures acrually give the majority as not beimg either fundamentalist, or radical. That is several millilon people there, who can also act as facilitators with wider siciety.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That doesn't follow, of course you can buy a house with a true gift (if it is big enough of course, or the house small enough I suppose).
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I only skimmed that story yesterday but it seemed to be that the donation had a “legitimate “ UK source but in fact had come from someone else furth of the UK. Unless there is evidence that Jenrick knew that this doesn’t seem to be his problem.
There is evidence that his wife knew. If his wife knew, that’s getting closer to him knowing.
Was his wife not a solicitor bound by client confidentiality and therefore couldn’t tell him? I really can’t stand the man. He’s repulsive. I’d love to be wrong but I don’t see this going anywhere.
That’s the claim being made. I don’t know how arguable that is.
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
Miliband and Streeting have a fair bit of support.
Miliband won't stand against Burnham. He'll back him and probably be hoping for CoE. But Streeting is different matter. Streeting v Burnham is possible IMO. It would be that or a Burnham coronation.
Unless Burnham loses the byelection - which he might - in which case I think we're looking at Streeting v Miliband or Rayner.
Despite what he says I don't think Starmer will run in any leadership contest if it comes to it.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
I think some of you are overthinking this. Why are Reform smashing away at Labour? Why are the Greens smashing away at Labour? Because people want *change*. They voted for that in 2024 and didn't get it. That's why they are incandescent.
So on paper, Makerfield looks a risk. Reform sniping away. The Greens.
No. Why Makerfield? Because Burnham used to be the MP for part of it and lives there. The local connection, plus *its Andy Burnham* and he isn't remotely under threat.
Whats more, I expect that he is going to run the kind of by-election campaign we rarely see. Not "I want to be a Labour MP and bring Labour's program to this seat". It will be "I am the program".
And that program will be change. He will win the by-election comfortably, and then he wins the leadership by proclamation because nobody else will get to 81 names.
I agree with most of that, but I think there will be a contest, as it will suit Burnham to be seen to win. For much the same reasons he picked a not totally safe seat for the by election.
There’s definitely something in the idea that Manchester choose to elect a Manchester man for the PM. That will be very appetising IMHO.
Green vote already looks like it’s on the way to collapse. So Burnham needs to make a push on immigration.
Your regular reminder that Makerfield != Manchester.
But your point arguably still holds - That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens elects a That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens man for PM.
Burnham will struggle to make a push on immigration. It is one of his blindspots.
I call those places Rugby League land.
I once got into so much trouble for calling people from St Helens ‘plastic Scousers’.
It is rugby league* land - these people care deeply about rugby league in a way much of the country doesn't really get - but this territory is even more specific than that. Wigan, Warrington and St. Helens are the medium sized rugby league towns between the big cities of Manchester and Liverpool, but I'm talking here about the small towns between the medium sized towns: Ashton-in-Makerfield, Hindley, Leigh**, Golborne, Newton-Le-Willows, Haydock. It's deeply inward looking. Everyone knows each other in a way that they don't quite in the medium-sized towns like Wigan.
*though I think I am right that actually more people PLAY rugby union, and of course Orrell, which was briefly in rugby union's top division in the early years after the establishment of such things in the 80s, and supplied several England players - rugby league is something to watch. Baffling to me because to my eyes League is a rather less engaging and exciting game. Nowadays of course many kids play both - my daughter plays rugby on the fringes of this zone and many girls play rugby league on a Saturday and rugby union on a Sunday in the way that kids elsewhere will play football on a Saturday and rugby (union) on a Sunday.
**granted Leigh has its own professional club but so chippy is Leigh about being overshadowed by big-city Wigan that I tentatively put it in this bracket.
I was brought up to watch and play Rugby Union but now in the evening of my days I much prefer League. Too many stoppages and restarts in Union. League keeps going.
I think union does get bogged down sometimes. There is a particular curse at the moment of 'water' carriers onto the pitch at every conceivable moment, and an awful lot of minor injuries seem to happen (its a tough sport, but these are tough players). That said when its good, you cannot beat union. I'm a Bath season ticket holder and some of the games in the last three years have been the best sport I've ever seen. The level of play in the European Quarter Final against Northampton was Test Match standard. It was breathtakingly good.
My feeling is that union used to be very turgid affair. I was brought up watching league and playing mostly union (had a go at league and really enjoyed it). In the early years of Super League, really exciting, amazing players like Robinson, Offiah, Tuigamala, made for fantastic spectacle.
However, the rule changes that have been introduced into union have revolutionised the game (at least below the international level*), where as league defensive tactics appear to have go so good it is really hard to score.
In the Gallagher Premiership the likes of Northampton and Bristol play incredibly attractive rugby and pretty much nailed on games with them playing will run up cricket scores. Speaking of which it is Northampton vs Bristol this evening albeit Bristol suffering terrible injury losses will probably mean its a fairly straight forward win for Northampton.
* international level appears to struggle a bit with elite defenses and too much box kicking to try and break up those set defensive lines. But even there, the recent rule changes stopping blocking off challenges for the kick has led to more excitement.
Expectations for Charles were quite low, so it's been easier for him to exceed them. William, on the other hand, there appear to be quite high expectations for him so he may have a tougher time of it when he takes over.
Terrifying polling on Muslim views in France, UK, Germany
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination: ~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated ~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious ~25% are fundamentalists ~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
Amidst the whirl of politics, KC3 went to Golders Green and was almost mobbed by anxious but happy Jewish people. Grateful for his presence. Imagine a Labour prime minister trying to do this. Oh wait he did and was screamed at
“Today, in response to a series of smaller attacks on Jews, our British monarch has just taken on a role as patron of the Community Security Trust. He has visited this site of an attempted massacre to shake hands with a traumatised and fearful Jewish community. He has, in short, behaved like a mensch. His visit tells a different story about how British institutions and leaders relate to this country’s Jewish community.”
Charles showing more leadership that Starmer in the US and at home right now. It must be very grating for Labour.
Why would it be grating for Labour? The King is doing his job as head of state. His speech in the US will certainly have been written with substantial government input. Being able to do this kind of subtle diplomacy abroad and non partisan unifying stuff at home is precisely why having a constitutional monarchy is so great.
Obvious point to make - but the monarchy is designed to be a unifying force - and it's certainly in its interests to be seen as such. Politicians, not so much.
KCIII has always, and sensibly, made a point of reaching out to minorities, of whatever type. In general, this attention is greatly appreciated, as you can see by the line-up of beaming community reps at royal visits. Helps to bind the nation in a way which, say, a President Farage is unlikely to achieve. Of course, "national treasures", like David Attenborough might do equally well but these kind of people are invariably keen monarchists anyway.
I never liked Prince Charles. I regard him as not particularly bright, and apparently he can be difficult. However I think part of his issues was waiting for the main gig for 50 years. He seems to have become brilliant at being the monarch, and I can respect him for that, even though I am a republican at heart.
Outlier view, I know, but I think he's an upgrade on the previous monarch.
Amidst the whirl of politics, KC3 went to Golders Green and was almost mobbed by anxious but happy Jewish people. Grateful for his presence. Imagine a Labour prime minister trying to do this. Oh wait he did and was screamed at
“Today, in response to a series of smaller attacks on Jews, our British monarch has just taken on a role as patron of the Community Security Trust. He has visited this site of an attempted massacre to shake hands with a traumatised and fearful Jewish community. He has, in short, behaved like a mensch. His visit tells a different story about how British institutions and leaders relate to this country’s Jewish community.”
Charles showing more leadership that Starmer in the US and at home right now. It must be very grating for Labour.
Why would it be grating for Labour? The King is doing his job as head of state. His speech in the US will certainly have been written with substantial government input. Being able to do this kind of subtle diplomacy abroad and non partisan unifying stuff at home is precisely why having a constitutional monarchy is so great.
Obvious point to make - but the monarchy is designed to be a unifying force - and it's certainly in its interests to be seen as such. Politicians, not so much.
KCIII has always, and sensibly, made a point of reaching out to minorities, of whatever type. In general, this attention is greatly appreciated, as you can see by the line-up of beaming community reps at royal visits. Helps to bind the nation in a way which, say, a President Farage is unlikely to achieve. Of course, "national treasures", like David Attenborough might do equally well but these kind of people are invariably keen monarchists anyway.
I never liked Prince Charles. I regard him as not particularly bright, and apparently he can be difficult. However I think part of his issues was waiting for the main gig for 50 years. He seems to have become brilliant at being the monarch, and I can respect him for that, even though I am a republican at heart.
Yes. I've heard a story of his difficulty while he was Prince of Wales. And we all remember him complaining about the bloody pen.
But he's doing the main job well.
Like you I'm instinctively republican - "hereditary monarchy is a silly idea," as my mother puts it - but you have to give credit where it's due, as it is with KCIII.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
That will all be forgotten by this time next week. All of the regards who are going to vote for know he's a grifter and don't care.
It won't. He's going to be dragged through the process if a Parliamentary standards enquiry, which will further highlight his twists and turns on the matter.
Some of the retards ('regards' is a typo ?) won't care. But I doubt that group constitutes a third of the electorate.
Sorry, I forgot the cultural literacy of the vast majority on here ends at 2007.
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
If he wins, the momentum will be hurricane-force. Labour folk will absolutely love Burnham taking down Reform, and it will give hope to the hundreds of MPs at risk.
I wonder if Starmer will swallow his pride, recognise the inevitable, and attempt a dignified handover.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
A gift to a politician is very different from a gift father>son to facilitate a house purchase.
If the guy gave Farage £5m, then there’s a whole load of pertinent questions to be asked.
Terrifying polling on Muslim views in France, UK, Germany
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination: ~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated ~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious ~25% are fundamentalists ~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
That will all be forgotten by this time next week. All of the regards who are going to vote for know he's a grifter and don't care.
It won't. He's going to be dragged through the process if a Parliamentary standards enquiry, which will further highlight his twists and turns on the matter.
Some of the retards ('regards' is a typo ?) won't care. But I doubt that group constitutes a third of the electorate.
Sorry, I forgot the cultural literacy of the vast majority on here ends at 2007.
Expectations for Charles were quite low, so it's been easier for him to exceed them. William, on the other hand, there appear to be quite high expectations for him so he may have a tougher time of it when he takes over.
William seems, understandably, to be deeply affected by the contribution the Press made to the death of his mother, and some of the misery of her life. There's a risk that he'll be a reclusive monarch. But I think only a small risk.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
Slight frustration: why does this come 2 years later? Grrr.
I'm down on OFCOM at the moment. My MP gets 100k per annum for presenting a TV show, which I think is outside the OFCOM rules. But it's a touch tricky to ask him to lean on OFCOM to make them enforce their rules, when it could cost him more than his MP basic salary, which is already very generous).
( @Bondgezou - you were correct on Hackney the other day. I did correct rapidly, but I mixed Hackney with another Green Borough where they had a small margin as largest party.)
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
That will all be forgotten by this time next week. All of the regards who are going to vote for know he's a grifter and don't care.
It won't. He's going to be dragged through the process if a Parliamentary standards enquiry, which will further highlight his twists and turns on the matter.
Some of the retards ('regards' is a typo ?) won't care. But I doubt that group constitutes a third of the electorate.
Sorry, I forgot the cultural literacy of the vast majority on here ends at 2007.
There’s definitely something in the idea that Manchester choose to elect a Manchester man for the PM. That will be very appetising IMHO.
Green vote already looks like it’s on the way to collapse. So Burnham needs to make a push on immigration.
Your regular reminder that Makerfield != Manchester.
But your point arguably still holds - That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens elects a That-vague-bit-of-small-towns-between-Wigan-Warrington-and-St-Helens man for PM.
Burnham will struggle to make a push on immigration. It is one of his blindspots.
I call those places Rugby League land.
I once got into so much trouble for calling people from St Helens ‘plastic Scousers’.
It is rugby league* land - these people care deeply about rugby league in a way much of the country doesn't really get - but this territory is even more specific than that. Wigan, Warrington and St. Helens are the medium sized rugby league towns between the big cities of Manchester and Liverpool, but I'm talking here about the small towns between the medium sized towns: Ashton-in-Makerfield, Hindley, Leigh**, Golborne, Newton-Le-Willows, Haydock. It's deeply inward looking. Everyone knows each other in a way that they don't quite in the medium-sized towns like Wigan.
*though I think I am right that actually more people PLAY rugby union, and of course Orrell, which was briefly in rugby union's top division in the early years after the establishment of such things in the 80s, and supplied several England players - rugby league is something to watch. Baffling to me because to my eyes League is a rather less engaging and exciting game. Nowadays of course many kids play both - my daughter plays rugby on the fringes of this zone and many girls play rugby league on a Saturday and rugby union on a Sunday in the way that kids elsewhere will play football on a Saturday and rugby (union) on a Sunday.
**granted Leigh has its own professional club but so chippy is Leigh about being overshadowed by big-city Wigan that I tentatively put it in this bracket.
I was brought up to watch and play Rugby Union but now in the evening of my days I much prefer League. Too many stoppages and restarts in Union. League keeps going.
I think union does get bogged down sometimes. There is a particular curse at the moment of 'water' carriers onto the pitch at every conceivable moment, and an awful lot of minor injuries seem to happen (its a tough sport, but these are tough players). That said when its good, you cannot beat union. I'm a Bath season ticket holder and some of the games in the last three years have been the best sport I've ever seen. The level of play in the European Quarter Final against Northampton was Test Match standard. It was breathtakingly good.
My feeling is that union used to be very turgid affair. I was brought up watching league and playing mostly union (had a go at league and really enjoyed it). In the early years of Super League, really exciting, amazing players like Robinson, Offiah, Tuigamala, made for fantastic spectacle.
However, the rule changes that have been introduced into union have revolutionised the game (at least below the international level*), where as league defensive tactics appear to have go so good it is really hard to score.
In the Gallagher Premiership the likes of Northampton and Bristol play incredibly attractive rugby and pretty much nailed on games with them playing will run up cricket scores. Speaking of which it is Northampton vs Bristol this evening albeit Bristol suffering terrible injury losses will probably mean its a fairly straight forward win for Northampton.
* international level appears to struggle a bit with elite defenses and too much box kicking to try and break up those set defensive lines. But even there, the recent rule changes stopping blocking off challenges for the kick has led to more excitement.
Northampton are super sexy when running the ball. I think they will win the Prem this year (having seen them at Bath twice). Bath are a little back from where they were last year.
If all internationals were as open as France vs England it would be great. I have just a suspicion that as the moment the laws are favouring offence a bit much and we are routinely seeing 45 vs 38 etc. The danger is it becomes a bit too much like basketball.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
That will all be forgotten by this time next week. All of the regards who are going to vote for know he's a grifter and don't care.
It won't. He's going to be dragged through the process if a Parliamentary standards enquiry, which will further highlight his twists and turns on the matter.
Some of the retards ('regards' is a typo ?) won't care. But I doubt that group constitutes a third of the electorate.
Sorry, I forgot the cultural literacy of the vast majority on here ends at 2007.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
A gift to a politician is very different from a gift father>son to facilitate a house purchase.
If the guy gave Farage £5m, then there’s a whole load of pertinent questions to be asked.
Yes. I need to know, because I am very willing to perform (almost) all the same services for the same fee.
I think some of you are overthinking this. Why are Reform smashing away at Labour? Why are the Greens smashing away at Labour? Because people want *change*. They voted for that in 2024 and didn't get it. That's why they are incandescent.
So on paper, Makerfield looks a risk. Reform sniping away. The Greens.
No. Why Makerfield? Because Burnham used to be the MP for part of it and lives there. The local connection, plus *its Andy Burnham* and he isn't remotely under threat.
Whats more, I expect that he is going to run the kind of by-election campaign we rarely see. Not "I want to be a Labour MP and bring Labour's program to this seat". It will be "I am the program".
And that program will be change. He will win the by-election comfortably, and then he wins the leadership by proclamation because nobody else will get to 81 names.
I agree with most of that, but I think there will be a contest, as it will suit Burnham to be seen to win. For much the same reasons he picked a not totally safe seat for the by election.
He had no choice . It was the only seat available to him .
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
If he wins, the momentum will be hurricane-force. Labour folk will absolutely love Burnham taking down Reform, and it will give hope to the hundreds of MPs at risk.
I wonder if Starmer will swallow his pride, recognise the inevitable, and attempt a dignified handover.
Why does Burnham have this reputation of getting stuff done? What has he actually done in national politics? I just don’t get this obsession with Burnham? Maybe I am missing something? Genuinely puzzled…
Am I right in thinking everybody who wants to stand need 81 MPs? So there is really only room for 3 candidates?
Starmer doesn't need 81 MPs but anyone else does, yes.
If Burnham wins the by-election, I can't see anyone other than him getting 81 nominations unless Starmer stands down. So we're most likely looking at a straight Starmer v Burnham membership ballot.
If he wins, the momentum will be hurricane-force. Labour folk will absolutely love Burnham taking down Reform, and it will give hope to the hundreds of MPs at risk.
I wonder if Starmer will swallow his pride, recognise the inevitable, and attempt a dignified handover.
Why does Burnham have this reputation of getting stuff done? What has he actually done in national politics? I just don’t get this obsession with Burnham? Maybe I am missing something? Genuinely puzzled…
People cite Manchesters economic performance (outpacing the rest of the UK) and that he seems to have broad appeal (he has reached out beyond Labour).
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Is there not a threshold on gifts, though?
There's an annual threshold on gifts that are exempt from inheritance tax if the giver dies within seven years of the gift being given.
So, if I give my daughter a gift of £1,000 this year and die next year she won't pay any inheritance tax on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die next year then there will be inheritance tax* to pay on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die in 2034 then there's no inheritance tax on the gift.
* Actually not, because I live in Ireland, and there's no inheritance tax in Ireland, but instead a tax on the recipient, which means that gifts are liable for tax, with a variety of allowances depending on who you receive the gift from. This means my daughter's inheritance from me will escape tax (my estate won't pay tax and she won't pay tax either) but any inheritance I receive from my Dad will be taxed twice, if the amounts are large enough (once on the estate in Britain, and again on my receipt in Ireland. I should probably let my Dad know so he can pass most of it on to my daughter directly).
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
That will all be forgotten by this time next week. All of the regards who are going to vote for know he's a grifter and don't care.
It won't. He's going to be dragged through the process if a Parliamentary standards enquiry, which will further highlight his twists and turns on the matter.
Some of the retards ('regards' is a typo ?) won't care. But I doubt that group constitutes a third of the electorate.
Sorry, I forgot the cultural literacy of the vast majority on here ends at 2007.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Is there not a threshold on gifts, though?
Not a limit per se, but inheritance tax comes into play above £x if the donor lives less than 7 years. Think the donor lives in Thailand and may be tax resident there so no idea if that would apply here.
Terrifying polling on Muslim views in France, UK, Germany
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination: ~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated ~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious ~25% are fundamentalists ~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
I’d love to be optimistic but in the face of these numbers it js essentially impossible. We are heading for some kind of reckoning
Allthoigh those figures acrually give the majority as not beimg either fundamentalist, or radical. That is several millilon people there, who can also act as facilitators with wider siciety.
The data is actually worse than I expected. Only a minority are moderate/integrated. Between 60-90% are either conservative, fundamentalist or Islamist. And the Islamist number - 15% - equates to millions across Europe
To realise how bad this is just look at Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The number of active violent radicals was always tiny. A few thousand at most. But they relied upon a solid minority of Catholics willing to be passive enablers. Hiding, ignoring, excusing
These Muslim numbers on a percentage basis might be worse. And of course the overall totals are enormous
I see this going two ways
1. The white majorities elect populist right but democratic parties that slowly but humanely persuade more radical Muslims to leave (banning halal, the burqa, closing radical mosques etc). People will naturally go to more amenable societies
2. Actual violence like Ulster. As predicted by academics like David Betz
Terrifying polling on Muslim views in France, UK, Germany
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination: ~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated ~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious ~25% are fundamentalists ~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
I’d love to be optimistic but in the face of these numbers it js essentially impossible. We are heading for some kind of reckoning
The way you’ve done the bullet points surely has to be misleading on purpose
The click through to the detailed results is very interesting and for the most part fairly written up, though possibly with some over interpretation in places. There are concerning and encouraging aspects and I think it gives a decent picture overall. Definitely worth a look.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
We can safely say Farage wasn't being "careless" in recieving the £5 million from the foreign crypto trader, which is Neidle's allegation against Rayner contrary to the HMRC finding.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Is there not a threshold on gifts, though?
There's an annual threshold on gifts that are exempt from inheritance tax if the giver dies within seven years of the gift being given.
So, if I give my daughter a gift of £1,000 this year and die next year she won't pay any inheritance tax on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die next year then there will be inheritance tax* to pay on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die in 2034 then there's no inheritance tax on the gift.
* Actually not, because I live in Ireland, and there's no inheritance tax in Ireland, but instead a tax on the recipient, which means that gifts are liable for tax, with a variety of allowances depending on who you receive the gift from. This means my daughter's inheritance from me will escape tax (my estate won't pay tax and she won't pay tax either) but any inheritance I receive from my Dad will be taxed twice, if the amounts are large enough (once on the estate in Britain, and again on my receipt in Ireland. I should probably let my Dad know so he can pass most of it on to my daughter directly).
In addition there are also gifts exempt from inheritance tax:
£3k per year per donor £250 for as many people as you like Marriage gifts (£1k-£5k depending on relationship to couple) Regular gifts out of normal expenditure (not from savings/capital)
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
We can safely say Farage wasn't being "careless" in recieving the £5 million from the foreign crypto trader, which is Neidle's allegation against Rayner contrary to the HMRC finding.
And on that £5 million: crucial context:
Peter Mandelson was sacked from the first New Labour government for having a £373,000 *loan* (not a gift) from a Labour colleague (Geoffrey Robinson) to buy a house
If you totted up the sums for every financial scandal in British politics (£2k per parliamentary question for cash-for-questions, £200k for Johnson’s No 10 renovation, the cost of that very nice campervan) even with second tier stuff like Rayner and Polanski, would you get close to £5mn *in total*?
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
We can safely say Farage wasn't being "careless" in recieving the £5 million from the foreign crypto trader, which is Neidle's allegation against Rayner contrary to the HMRC finding.
And on that £5 million: crucial context:
Peter Mandelson was sacked from the first New Labour government for having a £373,000 *loan* (not a gift) from a Labour colleague (Geoffrey Robinson) to buy a house
If you totted up the sums for every financial scandal in British politics (£2k per parliamentary question for cash-for-questions, £200k for Johnson’s No 10 renovation, the cost of that very nice campervan) even with second tier stuff like Rayner and Polanski, would you get close to £5mn *in total*?
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I doubt most of the public think person-to-person gifts should be taxable at all. See inheritance tax.
IANAA but aiui person to person gifts are not taxable at all so the public is right. Farage's problem is being caught in a pincer movement between HMRC if it was payment and Parliamentary standards even if it was a gift, and if you can have a 3-way pincer, the wider public who think it came in a brown envelope. A further complication is the donor might be subject to different laws abroad.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Is there not a threshold on gifts, though?
There's an annual threshold on gifts that are exempt from inheritance tax if the giver dies within seven years of the gift being given.
So, if I give my daughter a gift of £1,000 this year and die next year she won't pay any inheritance tax on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die next year then there will be inheritance tax* to pay on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die in 2034 then there's no inheritance tax on the gift.
* Actually not, because I live in Ireland, and there's no inheritance tax in Ireland, but instead a tax on the recipient, which means that gifts are liable for tax, with a variety of allowances depending on who you receive the gift from. This means my daughter's inheritance from me will escape tax (my estate won't pay tax and she won't pay tax either) but any inheritance I receive from my Dad will be taxed twice, if the amounts are large enough (once on the estate in Britain, and again on my receipt in Ireland. I should probably let my Dad know so he can pass most of it on to my daughter directly).
I have the same issue with a French beneficiary but I'll be dead then so not my problem!
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Is there not a threshold on gifts, though?
There's an annual threshold on gifts that are exempt from inheritance tax if the giver dies within seven years of the gift being given.
So, if I give my daughter a gift of £1,000 this year and die next year she won't pay any inheritance tax on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die next year then there will be inheritance tax* to pay on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die in 2034 then there's no inheritance tax on the gift.
* Actually not, because I live in Ireland, and there's no inheritance tax in Ireland, but instead a tax on the recipient, which means that gifts are liable for tax, with a variety of allowances depending on who you receive the gift from. This means my daughter's inheritance from me will escape tax (my estate won't pay tax and she won't pay tax either) but any inheritance I receive from my Dad will be taxed twice, if the amounts are large enough (once on the estate in Britain, and again on my receipt in Ireland. I should probably let my Dad know so he can pass most of it on to my daughter directly).
Is inheritence tax covered by double taxation rules? Would any inheritence tax you pay in the UK be used to offset any tax liability in Ireland as it would if it were income?
Daniel Green @DanGreenJourno · 30m LATEST: Lucy Powell says at FBU conference that she has it on "good authority" that there will be "absolutely no attempt" to block Andy Burnham's candidacy, as she says that she'll be political lead in Makerfield by-election
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
We can safely say Farage wasn't being "careless" in recieving the £5 million from the foreign crypto trader, which is Neidle's allegation against Rayner contrary to the HMRC finding.
And on that £5 million: crucial context:
Peter Mandelson was sacked from the first New Labour government for having a £373,000 *loan* (not a gift) from a Labour colleague (Geoffrey Robinson) to buy a house
If you totted up the sums for every financial scandal in British politics (£2k per parliamentary question for cash-for-questions, £200k for Johnson’s No 10 renovation, the cost of that very nice campervan) even with second tier stuff like Rayner and Polanski, would you get close to £5mn *in total*?
Geri Scott @Geri_E_L_Scott Understand NEC officers aren't due to meet today but union general secretaries *are* and they are expecting Keir Starmer will address them (virtually).
Sources suggest the general secretaries won't necessarily want to hurry Starmer out of office, but they'll likely reiterate the statement from earlier this week and again suggest he set out an orderly timetable.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
AIUI there’s no way he doesn’t owe income tax on it, if it was sent to a personal bank account.
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
But then the security company would have to buy the house....
If a house was bought from the money, then it’s clearly income which should be taxed as such.
That's not how gifts are treated. If it was genuinely a gift, and not part of an exchange, then it wouldn't be taxable. For example, many parents gift their children money to help buy a house. This isn't taxable because it's a gift, the relationship between giver and receiver isn't relevant, except insofar as it makes it more believable that it's a gift than when the giver and receiver are a crypto-billionaire tax exile and a politician.
Is there not a threshold on gifts, though?
There's an annual threshold on gifts that are exempt from inheritance tax if the giver dies within seven years of the gift being given.
So, if I give my daughter a gift of £1,000 this year and die next year she won't pay any inheritance tax on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die next year then there will be inheritance tax* to pay on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die in 2034 then there's no inheritance tax on the gift.
* Actually not, because I live in Ireland, and there's no inheritance tax in Ireland, but instead a tax on the recipient, which means that gifts are liable for tax, with a variety of allowances depending on who you receive the gift from. This means my daughter's inheritance from me will escape tax (my estate won't pay tax and she won't pay tax either) but any inheritance I receive from my Dad will be taxed twice, if the amounts are large enough (once on the estate in Britain, and again on my receipt in Ireland. I should probably let my Dad know so he can pass most of it on to my daughter directly).
Is inheritence tax covered by double taxation rules? Would any inheritence tax you pay in the UK be used to offset any tax liability in Ireland as it would if it were income?
That's an interesting question. Would the quid pro quo be some inheritance tax to pay to avoid the double negative? I guess I'll have to look into that.
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
We can safely say Farage wasn't being "careless" in recieving the £5 million from the foreign crypto trader, which is Neidle's allegation against Rayner contrary to the HMRC finding.
And on that £5 million: crucial context:
Peter Mandelson was sacked from the first New Labour government for having a £373,000 *loan* (not a gift) from a Labour colleague (Geoffrey Robinson) to buy a house
If you totted up the sums for every financial scandal in British politics (£2k per parliamentary question for cash-for-questions, £200k for Johnson’s No 10 renovation, the cost of that very nice campervan) even with second tier stuff like Rayner and Polanski, would you get close to £5mn *in total*?
Wonder if we will get anything from him on Farage's £5m and income tax, considering he now says it is a reward for work done on Brexit.
We can safely say Farage wasn't being "careless" in recieving the £5 million from the foreign crypto trader, which is Neidle's allegation against Rayner contrary to the HMRC finding.
And on that £5 million: crucial context:
Peter Mandelson was sacked from the first New Labour government for having a £373,000 *loan* (not a gift) from a Labour colleague (Geoffrey Robinson) to buy a house
If you totted up the sums for every financial scandal in British politics (£2k per parliamentary question for cash-for-questions, £200k for Johnson’s No 10 renovation, the cost of that very nice campervan) even with second tier stuff like Rayner and Polanski, would you get close to £5mn *in total*?
Anyhoo, the big news yesterday was Nigel Farge lying again and potentially landing himself with a massive tax bill.
I'd disagree that that was the big story. The big story was the ongoing will-Andy-Burnham-get-to-be-PM story. I know many complain about the way the country collectively shrugs its shoulders at stories of Nigel Farage's dodginess, but this isn't really news: it's completely expected. It's priced in.
I disagree, in so far as it is a big story if not THE absolutely humungeous story of yesterday. In the eyes of the public, tax dodging is far more consequentai for a politician's reputation than technical Westminster village stuff such as non-declaration of political donations, so if HMRC go after Farage that matters.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I doubt most of the public think person-to-person gifts should be taxable at all. See inheritance tax.
IANAA but aiui person to person gifts are not taxable at all so the public is right. Farage's problem is being caught in a pincer movement between HMRC if it was payment and Parliamentary standards even if it was a gift, and if you can have a 3-way pincer, the wider public who think it came in a brown envelope. A further complication is the donor might be subject to different laws abroad.
ETA inheritance tax is a separate issue.
I don't think it is fully separate as the inheritance tax due from gifts is first due from the gift receiver before it is due from the estate. So person to person gifts above the limit (from the donors viewpoint) are potentially taxable.
Expectations for Charles were quite low, so it's been easier for him to exceed them. William, on the other hand, there appear to be quite high expectations for him so he may have a tougher time of it when he takes over.
The good thing about being a constitutional monarch and not head of government is you can leave the lawmaking and taxing and spending and going to war to the PM and his Cabinet and Parliament. So provided William behaves himself and looks glamorous with the Princess of Wales and does some engagements he really shouldn't have much to worry about. He can let his PM make the unpopular decisions and carry the can for them
Comments
If you’re donating money to a politician to pay for their security, you should really pay it to a security company rather than a connected middleman or the politician himself.
In the same vein, council tax dodging could seriously damage Polanski.
I still think that, maybe, just maybe, they are figments of the protest vote and may fade as we approach the Big Vote. Then, again, Trump.
Ed Miliband could be the first boffin bond. There's also Janet Philipson, who could be the firsr female Bond. I think the question really is whether Daniel Craig can delay the leadership election any longer.
(More like the Scottish borders where, similarly, the Tories remain strong - though, obviously, the dynamic is different with the threat of the SNP uniting unionists behind the strongest unionist party)
Here, for example, is the full text of the declaration.
There's quite a lot of putting the court in its place in the text. And also, quite strong messages to domestic courts to apply restraint when applying the court's rulings.
https://rm.coe.int/pdf/09125948802bc2cc
For example, this bit on healthcare:
..Where an individual is being expelled or extradited, the quality of accessible healthcare in the receiving State should only give rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in very exceptional
circumstances described in the Court’s case law. There is no obligation for the returning State to alleviate the disparities between its own healthcare system and the level of treatment existing in the receiving State.
26. Where an individual is being expelled, the domestic courts and authorities in this context may benefit from further guidance on how to assess a range of individual socio-economic factors under Article 3 that may have a negative impact on that individual’s situation, but do not each in isolation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, and on the role the general socioeconomic situation in the receiving country plays in that assessment.
...
29. In light of the foregoing, caution should be exercised when applying case law of the Court, including by the domestic courts, concerning the situation in a State Party when assessing whether the expulsion or extradition of an individual to a non-State Party would violate a State’s obligations under Article 3 of theConvention. ..
I think it quite significant, as it is a consensus of the member states pushing back (in diplomatic language)at what they fairly clearly see as court overreach, rather than just one of them complaining about a decision.
KCIII has always, and sensibly, made a point of reaching out to minorities, of whatever type. In general, this attention is greatly appreciated, as you can see by the line-up of beaming community reps at royal visits. Helps to bind the nation in a way which, say, a President Farage is unlikely to achieve. Of course, "national treasures", like David Attenborough might do equally well but these kind of people are invariably keen monarchists anyway.
It wasn’t that long ago that Tory councillors cancelled the planned new County Hall in Ashington because they didn’t fancy commuting from Morpeth
He's going to be dragged through the process if a Parliamentary standards enquiry, which will further highlight his twists and turns on the matter.
Some of the retards ('regards' is a typo ?) won't care. But I doubt that group constitutes a third of the electorate.
Summarised here:
Depending on the country of origin and destination:
~10-40% of Muslims are moderate & well integrated
~20-50% are conservative, religious, pious
~25% are fundamentalists
~Of which 15% (pp) are radical Islamists
https://x.com/tomaspueyo/status/2055024565428863144?s=46
I’d love to be optimistic but in the face of these numbers it js essentially impossible. We are heading for some kind of reckoning
Its hard to see what League has going for it, tbh. I've watched a couple of games in the flesh, and I'd argue its better than on TV, but Union knocks it out of the park, both live and on TV.
A somewhat interesting piece in the Telegraph about "young female far-right influencers" glamming up the movement (this is the Telegraph !).
There's quite a tone of being commercial as well as ideological, like Yaxley-Lennon. The alignment is generally more Restore than Reform, and one was banned from an event by Rupert Lowe. To my eye it is a kind of warmed-over Nick Griffin "smart and approachable" method. That is logical in an age defined by large screens emphasising the visual.
There's also a "remigrate the Jews" thing (where to?), which is an echo of expulsions we used to do in Medieval times.
There's also an "I'm proud of my Anglo-Saxon hair" (dark, long, frizzy), and I'm interested how she knew, since we have very little evidence as to what Anglo-Saxon hair was to the Anglo-Saxon; so that is more of an imagined past.
Full article link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/2e14f0066ad5277b
To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I wish we as an electorate held Green and Reform politicians to the standards that we rightly hold Lab and Con politicians. But it does not appear that we do.
If she has paid up and doesn't claim the refund then HMRC are £40k up
Unless Burnham loses the byelection - which he might - in which case I think we're looking at Streeting v Miliband or Rayner.
Despite what he says I don't think Starmer will run in any leadership contest if it comes to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dehKY5fCk0g
(The previous 4 were Caption Pugwash, the Wombles. the Clangers and Bagpuss.)_
For much the same reasons he picked a not totally safe seat for the by election.
However, the rule changes that have been introduced into union have revolutionised the game (at least below the international level*), where as league defensive tactics appear to have go so good it is really hard to score.
In the Gallagher Premiership the likes of Northampton and Bristol play incredibly attractive rugby and pretty much nailed on games with them playing will run up cricket scores. Speaking of which it is Northampton vs Bristol this evening albeit Bristol suffering terrible injury losses will probably mean its a fairly straight forward win for Northampton.
* international level appears to struggle a bit with elite defenses and too much box kicking to try and break up those set defensive lines. But even there, the recent rule changes stopping blocking off challenges for the kick has led to more excitement.
But he's doing the main job well.
Like you I'm instinctively republican - "hereditary monarchy is a silly idea," as my mother puts it - but you have to give credit where it's due, as it is with KCIII.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regarded
I wonder if Starmer will swallow his pride, recognise the inevitable, and attempt a dignified handover.
If the guy gave Farage £5m, then there’s a whole load of pertinent questions to be asked.
I'm down on OFCOM at the moment. My MP gets 100k per annum for presenting a TV show, which I think is outside the OFCOM rules. But it's a touch tricky to ask him to lean on OFCOM to make them enforce their rules, when it could cost him more than his MP basic salary, which is already very generous).
( @Bondgezou - you were correct on Hackney the other day. I did correct rapidly, but I mixed Hackney with another Green Borough where they had a small margin as largest party.)
Are Zack and Nige in a competition on who can tell the most half truths?
If all internationals were as open as France vs England it would be great. I have just a suspicion that as the moment the laws are favouring offence a bit much and we are routinely seeing 45 vs 38 etc. The danger is it becomes a bit too much like basketball.
So, if I give my daughter a gift of £1,000 this year and die next year she won't pay any inheritance tax on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die next year then there will be inheritance tax* to pay on the gift. If I give my daughter a gift of £25,000 this year and die in 2034 then there's no inheritance tax on the gift.
* Actually not, because I live in Ireland, and there's no inheritance tax in Ireland, but instead a tax on the recipient, which means that gifts are liable for tax, with a variety of allowances depending on who you receive the gift from. This means my daughter's inheritance from me will escape tax (my estate won't pay tax and she won't pay tax either) but any inheritance I receive from my Dad will be taxed twice, if the amounts are large enough (once on the estate in Britain, and again on my receipt in Ireland. I should probably let my Dad know so he can pass most of it on to my daughter directly).
To realise how bad this is just look at Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The number of active violent radicals was always tiny. A few thousand at most. But they relied upon a solid minority of Catholics willing to be passive enablers. Hiding, ignoring, excusing
These Muslim numbers on a percentage basis might be worse. And of course the overall totals are enormous
I see this going two ways
1. The white majorities elect populist right but democratic parties that slowly but humanely persuade more radical Muslims to leave (banning halal, the burqa, closing radical mosques etc). People will naturally go to more amenable societies
2. Actual violence like Ulster. As predicted by academics like David Betz
In any case, we make it far too difficult. And if you want fewer masts, allow existing ones to be taller.
£3k per year per donor
£250 for as many people as you like
Marriage gifts (£1k-£5k depending on relationship to couple)
Regular gifts out of normal expenditure (not from savings/capital)
crucial context:
Peter Mandelson was sacked from the first New Labour government for having a £373,000 *loan* (not a gift) from a Labour colleague (Geoffrey Robinson) to buy a house
https://bsky.app/profile/pickardje.bsky.social/post/3mlsq52mvj22r
If you totted up the sums for every financial scandal in British politics (£2k per parliamentary question for cash-for-questions, £200k for Johnson’s No 10 renovation, the cost of that very nice campervan) even with second tier stuff like Rayner and Polanski, would you get close to £5mn *in total*?
https://bsky.app/profile/stephenkb.bsky.social/post/3mluvbvsru22m
And add further context the £5 million is the only bribe to Farage that we know about. His main response so far is to complain about a data breach.
ETA inheritance tax is a separate issue.
So not gibberish - you are now talking about something utterly different from what your original post is about...
@DanGreenJourno
·
30m
LATEST: Lucy Powell says at FBU conference that she has it on "good authority" that there will be "absolutely no attempt" to block Andy Burnham's candidacy, as she says that she'll be political lead in Makerfield by-election
https://x.com/DanGreenJourno/status/2055223804083757147
@Geri_E_L_Scott
Understand NEC officers aren't due to meet today but union general secretaries *are* and they are expecting Keir Starmer will address them (virtually).
Sources suggest the general secretaries won't necessarily want to hurry Starmer out of office, but they'll likely reiterate the statement from earlier this week and again suggest he set out an orderly timetable.
https://x.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/2055230699544711205
@wesstreeting
·
9m
We need our best players on the pitch. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham is one of them.
The Makerfield by-election will be tough. Votes will need to be earned.
Andy is the best chance of winning and that should override factional advantage or propping up one person.
https://x.com/wesstreeting/status/2055229769323511939