President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
There's an established procedure for changing the text of the constitution. It does not involve the Supreme Court doing so by dictat.
The intention of the framers was to cover slaves and the children of slaves, not to allow birth tourism from the 3rd world.
The constitution didn’t codify abortion or gay marriage either, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court ruling as they did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Look, I prefer our system of Parliamentary supremacy over the US written constitution. But the GOP seem to worship the founding farmers, in particular when it comes to the right to bear arms applying to mentally unstable men carrying assault rifles. If they don't like some of the clear cut constitutional lines such as the above that go against their politics, then they need to change the constitution.
Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founding fathers and it was introduced in the context of cases disputing the citizenship of freed slaves. It wasn't written with anchor babies in mind and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can reasonably be interpreted to exclude them.
Anyone here share my view that Japan are stonking good value at 9/2 in their upcoming match against Brazil?
They're a serious team and despite Brazil's performance against Scotland, the boys from Brazil look eminently beatable to me.
Maybe laying Brazil at 4/5 is the bet, as the longer it goes the more it is likely to favour Japan, and they certainly won't mind going into extra team.
Dyor, as ever, but I'm on.
Nice tip so far.
I promise to be suitably modest about it if it comes in, TSE.
Japan are playing well though, as I thought they would.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who will grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
So change the Constitution. That’s what the Founding Fathers intended. They definitely didn’t intend for a Supreme Court to become a partisan body effectively inventing new laws.
That requires 34 states to agree and isn't going to happen especially in the time frame that Trump has left. Hence the (ab)use of the Supreme Court.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Stamp Duty on share transactions is one I’d get rid of and couple that with a real effort to reverse the decline in IPO’s/delisting on the stock exchange.
Several big companies are currently under bid and this is just a rolling thing
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Stamp Duty on share transactions is one I’d get rid of and couple that with a real effort to reverse the decline in IPO’s/delisting on the stock exchange.
Several big companies are currently under bid and this is just a rolling thing
If the UK won’t value them others will.
We need London to become the capital market of Europe once again. Anything that gets in the road of that needs to be looked at very carefully.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 14m Going to be a lot of policy and textual analysis of Andy Burnham's speech. But all that really matters at the moment is that he looks a bit different and sounds a bit different. And that should be enough to get him a hearing from the British public. Which is what he needs.
I’m certainly happy with what I heard. Snippets only I’ve been out for a bike ride earlier.
Like all,here, I wish him well and hope he succeeds. I’ve said I won’t vote Labour again after the Starmer disaster. I’ve even said I’d consider Reform. However if he does succeed in, at least turning it around, and does start doing stuff that genuinely helps the regions I’d consider labour again
However Burnham needs to realise the North is not JUST Manchester.
Is Manchester really the North? Same with Yorkshire. Growing up in Scotland and Tyneside I've always struggled to think of places you can drive to from London in time for breakfast as the "North"...
You can tell a true northerner: he believes that the north ends 15 miles south of where he was born.
I'm a true northener, by residence. And the north ends somewhere around Basildon
Where’s the furthest North sign on the M1, A1 or M6, that says “THE NORTH” on it?
ISTR one on the M1 around Sheffield, but it’s been a while since I’ve been anywhere near there.
Scotch Corner - because it's the last point where you can sanely go West for about the next 70 miles.
Isn’t that by the mandarin oriental in Knightsbridge??
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Scrapping CGT is a surefire way to create utter chaos in our tax system.
Want to see trillions of taxable income suddenly magically become capital gains just like that? Then abolish CGT. No amount of anti avoidance legislation can vanquish human nature.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who will grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Stamp Duty on share transactions is one I’d get rid of and couple that with a real effort to reverse the decline in IPO’s/delisting on the stock exchange.
Several big companies are currently under bid and this is just a rolling thing
If the UK won’t value them others will.
On the other hand scrapping stamp duty on shares is absolutely a no brainer and should be done tomorrow.
Have we really turned A/C into another fucking culture war?
It started decades ago because A/C was associated with American excess. Michael Caine mocked the way people in Florida have A/C on full all the time, while off course having air conditioning in his own place in Surrey.
Why would he need a/c? Wouldn’t he just blow the bloody doors off?
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
I’m conflicted on this. Taxing gains to wealth seems absurd to me - the antithesis of social mobility. Far better to tax the stock of wealth where possible - property and land.
OTOH, I think the lesson from other countries is personal taxation is far better than taxes on businesses - and almost all of my capital gains (except my house) are overseas equities, which doesn’t help the UK economy too much. And it’s a deeply regressive cut, all held equal.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who will grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
Though given China has a fertility rate barely more than half that of the USA, they may want some of them to return home
I remember Zhou En Lai speaking to Nixon who was wittering about freedom of movement in the west. He suddenly looked interested. You want some Chinese? How many, 1m? 2m? Instant back pedalling by Nixon. Of course this was in the days when fertility rates were less of an issue for China.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
I’m conflicted on this. Taxing gains to wealth seems absurd to me - the antithesis of social mobility. Far better to tax the stock of wealth where possible - property and land.
OTOH, I think the lesson from other countries is personal taxation is far better than taxes on businesses - and almost all of my capital gains (except my house) are overseas equities, which doesn’t help the UK economy too much. And it’s a deeply regressive cut, all held equal.
Edit: plus MelonB’s obvious point
The right answer is to equalise income tax and CGT rates, but bring back indexation so that people are not simply taxed on inflation, and introduce long term tapering as France does so that the actual tax charge reduces towards zero (in France it's 22 years).
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
I’m conflicted on this. Taxing gains to wealth seems absurd to me - the antithesis of social mobility. Far better to tax the stock of wealth where possible - property and land.
OTOH, I think the lesson from other countries is personal taxation is far better than taxes on businesses - and almost all of my capital gains (except my house) are overseas equities, which doesn’t help the UK economy too much. And it’s a deeply regressive cut, all held equal.
Edit: plus MelonB’s obvious point
Why is taxing gains to wealth any more absurd than taxing income?
I'm being a productive member of society earning plenty of money. And the government takes almost 50% of it. Why should capital gains be tax free? Subject to indexation and at a sensible rate, but I fail to see why there should be such a large relative subsidy of capital versus labour.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Ah, the old 'favourable treatment for wealthy people benefits everyone' chestnut. It does the rounds, that one.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
There's an established procedure for changing the text of the constitution. It does not involve the Supreme Court doing so by dictat.
The intention of the framers was to cover slaves and the children of slaves, not to allow birth tourism from the 3rd world.
The constitution didn’t codify abortion or gay marriage either, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court ruling as they did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Look, I prefer our system of Parliamentary supremacy over the US written constitution. But the GOP seem to worship the founding farmers, in particular when it comes to the right to bear arms applying to mentally unstable men carrying assault rifles. If they don't like some of the clear cut constitutional lines such as the above that go against their politics, then they need to change the constitution.
Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founding fathers and it was introduced in the context of cases disputing the citizenship of freed slaves. It wasn't written with anchor babies in mind and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can reasonably be interpreted to exclude them.
The Supreme Court follows its own precedents by and large and they’ve ruled on this multiple times before.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
I can’t see Barrett doing away with birthright citizenship.
They don't need her, though. And Roberts will be writing the opinion.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Ah, the old 'favourable treatment for wealthy people benefits everyone' chestnut. It does the rounds, that one.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who will grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
So change the Constitution. That’s what the Founding Fathers intended. They definitely didn’t intend for a Supreme Court to become a partisan body effectively inventing new laws.
That requires 34 states to agree and isn't going to happen especially in the time frame that Trump has left. Hence the (ab)use of the Supreme Court.
If Trump, and Sandpit, think they have a compelling case, they can make it to the voters and get 34 states to agree.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
I’m conflicted on this. Taxing gains to wealth seems absurd to me - the antithesis of social mobility. Far better to tax the stock of wealth where possible - property and land.
OTOH, I think the lesson from other countries is personal taxation is far better than taxes on businesses - and almost all of my capital gains (except my house) are overseas equities, which doesn’t help the UK economy too much. And it’s a deeply regressive cut, all held equal.
Edit: plus MelonB’s obvious point
The right answer is to equalise income tax and CGT rates, but bring back indexation so that people are not simply taxed on inflation, and introduce long term tapering as France does so that the actual tax charge reduces towards zero (in France it's 22 years).
Yes. Equalise and index. Fair (on inflation) and no incentive to 'structure' one thing as another thing.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who will grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
So change the Constitution. That’s what the Founding Fathers intended. They definitely didn’t intend for a Supreme Court to become a partisan body effectively inventing new laws.
It has been doing that for a very long time. But rewriting the plain text of the constitution itself is well beyond that.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
There's an established procedure for changing the text of the constitution. It does not involve the Supreme Court doing so by dictat.
The intention of the framers was to cover slaves and the children of slaves, not to allow birth tourism from the 3rd world.
The constitution didn’t codify abortion or gay marriage either, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court ruling as they did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Look, I prefer our system of Parliamentary supremacy over the US written constitution. But the GOP seem to worship the founding farmers, in particular when it comes to the right to bear arms applying to mentally unstable men carrying assault rifles. If they don't like some of the clear cut constitutional lines such as the above that go against their politics, then they need to change the constitution.
Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founding fathers and it was introduced in the context of cases disputing the citizenship of freed slaves. It wasn't written with anchor babies in mind and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can reasonably be interpreted to exclude them.
The Supreme Court follows its own precedents by and large and they’ve ruled on this multiple times before.
Their recent precedent is to ignore Supreme Court precedents and the constitution and to instead follow whatever ridiculous effluence comes out of the orange one's arse.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
There's an established procedure for changing the text of the constitution. It does not involve the Supreme Court doing so by dictat.
The intention of the framers was to cover slaves and the children of slaves, not to allow birth tourism from the 3rd world.
The constitution didn’t codify abortion or gay marriage either, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court ruling as they did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Look, I prefer our system of Parliamentary supremacy over the US written constitution. But the GOP seem to worship the founding farmers, in particular when it comes to the right to bear arms applying to mentally unstable men carrying assault rifles. If they don't like some of the clear cut constitutional lines such as the above that go against their politics, then they need to change the constitution.
Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founding fathers and it was introduced in the context of cases disputing the citizenship of freed slaves. It wasn't written with anchor babies in mind and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can reasonably be interpreted to exclude them.
That's just bullshit, william. You argue as though the U.S. hasn't had immigration - and far more porous borders than now - throughout its history.
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Ah, the old 'favourable treatment for wealthy people benefits everyone' chestnut. It does the rounds, that one.
I genuinely want Burnham to do well because we so need a government that knows what it wants to do. But, I have to ask, is that it? That's his vision? Don't get me wrong, its closer to that vision thing than Starmer ever got, but jeez. We have so many horrendous problems that our entire political class of every stripe has tried so hard to avoid talking about for a very, very long time and we are worrying about devolution and having part of the government in the north. Wow.
Agree about the question, but I think it's inevitable that we shall have to wait and see. He will need so much strength to do all the right things for the country, and keep the Labour party/MPs onside, and keep Reform at bay, and win the next election that he needs to shore up the base and those capable of giving him a chance (I am one) before bit by bit undertaking the task of reforming the country, running stuff well, making the right calls, and upsetting the 'spend more and tax others' brigade.
For the moment it's enough to start reminding us our cup is half full, not half empty, that adversarial knockabout is for losers, and form a miraculously good team. He will be better at team building than Starmer, not only because he could not be worse but because of who he is. Nice to have a leader in waiting who is comfortable with himself and with the human race. What a contrast with Starmer, Kemi and Farage.
Legendary pharma industry commentator Derek Lowe says "the Trump administration is trying to destroy federally-funded research in the US as we know it and replace it with cronyism and worse."
And who's not speaking up about it? The CEOs of major biopharma companies.
Lowe calls this "odd," apparently using the word the same way I do. (It translates to "batshit crazy.")
He points out: "(1) the great majority of the employees at these companies came through that exact funding system at some point in their careers, and (2) since the industry depends on the basic science research funded this way to make its own advances in applied and clinical applications."
The interesting thing about william and Sandpit's takes, is that they indicate a general belief by the MAGA side of US politics that the Supreme Court is likely to abolish birthright citizenship.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
There's an established procedure for changing the text of the constitution. It does not involve the Supreme Court doing so by dictat.
The intention of the framers was to cover slaves and the children of slaves, not to allow birth tourism from the 3rd world.
The constitution didn’t codify abortion or gay marriage either, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court ruling as they did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Look, I prefer our system of Parliamentary supremacy over the US written constitution. But the GOP seem to worship the founding farmers, in particular when it comes to the right to bear arms applying to mentally unstable men carrying assault rifles. If they don't like some of the clear cut constitutional lines such as the above that go against their politics, then they need to change the constitution.
Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founding fathers and it was introduced in the context of cases disputing the citizenship of freed slaves. It wasn't written with anchor babies in mind and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can reasonably be interpreted to exclude them.
That's just bullshit, william. You argue as though the U.S. hasn't had immigration - and far more porous borders than now - throughout its history.
Pre Hart-Celler it was very selective and they had ethnic quotas.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
One of my unfulfilled ambitions is to pay CGT. Never quite managed it, sadly.
All I can say is you aren't trying hard enough. We have found a wheeze that might avoid it but then it does require one of us to die sadly. Even then it is a challenge.
378,000 people paid CGT in the last tax year. 0.7% of the adult population. It raised £13b.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
Yes it’s better off scrapped entirely. The positive effect on investment would outweigh it with taxes on employment and business profits.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
I’m conflicted on this. Taxing gains to wealth seems absurd to me - the antithesis of social mobility. Far better to tax the stock of wealth where possible - property and land.
OTOH, I think the lesson from other countries is personal taxation is far better than taxes on businesses - and almost all of my capital gains (except my house) are overseas equities, which doesn’t help the UK economy too much. And it’s a deeply regressive cut, all held equal.
Edit: plus MelonB’s obvious point
Why is taxing gains to wealth any more absurd than taxing income?
I'm being a productive member of society earning plenty of money. And the government takes almost 50% of it. Why should capital gains be tax free? Subject to indexation and at a sensible rate, but I fail to see why there should be such a large relative subsidy of capital an versus labour.
Just a different macro perspective. We have miserable investment record as a country (both private and public), while our employment rate is at a sustained and historical high (despite the Boriswave etc etc). I think encouraging the former should always be the priority, particularly for those on lower incomes.
But like I said in my first post, there are a number of other reasons why it isnt a great idea. And ISAs already play that role.
Personally, I think it is hard to justify the continuation of birthright citizenship. But I don't think constitutional amendments should be overrideable by executive orders.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
So "Number 10 North" is just code for "Burnham doesn't fancy packing up and moving"?
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
There's an established procedure for changing the text of the constitution. It does not involve the Supreme Court doing so by dictat.
The intention of the framers was to cover slaves and the children of slaves, not to allow birth tourism from the 3rd world.
The constitution didn’t codify abortion or gay marriage either, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court ruling as they did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Look, I prefer our system of Parliamentary supremacy over the US written constitution. But the GOP seem to worship the founding farmers, in particular when it comes to the right to bear arms applying to mentally unstable men carrying assault rifles. If they don't like some of the clear cut constitutional lines such as the above that go against their politics, then they need to change the constitution.
Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founding fathers and it was introduced in the context of cases disputing the citizenship of freed slaves. It wasn't written with anchor babies in mind and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can reasonably be interpreted to exclude them.
That's just bullshit, william. You argue as though the U.S. hasn't had immigration - and far more porous borders than now - throughout its history.
Immigrants like Trump’s mum, Trump’s first wife, Trump’s third wife, Trump’s parents-in-law, Vance’s parents-in-law, Trump’s paternal grandparents, Rubio’s parents, Rubio’s parents-in-law, Jared Kushner’s paternal grandparents, John Thune’s mother and paternal grandfather, and so on.
Personally, I think it is hard to justify the continuation of birthright citizenship. But I don't think constitutional amendments should be overrideable by executive orders.
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
There's an established procedure for changing the text of the constitution. It does not involve the Supreme Court doing so by dictat.
The intention of the framers was to cover slaves and the children of slaves, not to allow birth tourism from the 3rd world.
The constitution didn’t codify abortion or gay marriage either, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court ruling as they did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Look, I prefer our system of Parliamentary supremacy over the US written constitution. But the GOP seem to worship the founding farmers, in particular when it comes to the right to bear arms applying to mentally unstable men carrying assault rifles. If they don't like some of the clear cut constitutional lines such as the above that go against their politics, then they need to change the constitution.
Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment wasn't written by the founding fathers and it was introduced in the context of cases disputing the citizenship of freed slaves. It wasn't written with anchor babies in mind and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can reasonably be interpreted to exclude them.
That's just bullshit, william. You argue as though the U.S. hasn't had immigration - and far more porous borders than now - throughout its history.
Immigrants like Trump’s mum, Trump’s first wife, Trump’s third wife, Trump’s parents-in-law, Vance’s parents-in-law, Trump’s paternal grandparents, Rubio’s parents, Rubio’s parents-in-law, Jared Kushner’s paternal grandparents, John Thune’s mother and paternal grandfather, and so on.
In which case, if the immigrants really are that bad, maybe it should be stopped?
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
Presumably he'll attend the Commons? I don't see how Downing st can't be his residence, his security detail will do their nut if he suggests he's going to rent a modest 2 bed flat as a London pied a terre.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
Presumably he'll attend the Commons? I don't see how Downing st can't be his residence, his security detail will do their nut if he suggests he's going to rent a modest 2 bed flat as a London pied a terre.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
He's aiming to be the first hybrid PM. Two days a week he will be PM on Teams or Zoom only. Maybe.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He's going to have to be down in the Commons frequently, and unless he moves Whitehall entire up north the whole machinery of government is there. He's hardly going to commute every day.
I'm certain he'll end up sleeping many nights in Number Ten, but I guess when I was working in London during the week for months I didn't move there.
We'll see how long this lasts. I can imagine some of the papers being very interested in where he is sleeping each night now.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
That's one heck of a commute (and carbon footprint) if Burnham and entourage will be travelling daily between London and Manchester.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
Really? Sounds more like he will do a weekly commute to London, stopping over for 3-4 nights, as thousands do.
I'm no expert in rough sleeping (well, not since my Inter Rail days in the 80s) or the Vagrancy Act but I thought one of the provisions was it outlawed asking for money.
People can sit there with signs but as long as they don't make a direct verbal request for money (and aren't causing an obstruction), the local Police in East Ham usually leave them alone.
They have their pitches where they think the rich people go - outside the bookies, the 99p shop (not the 89p shop, it's a cut throat world in discount retail) and Lidl. Some travel - the older ones have 60+ Oyster cards, the younger ones just push through the barriers.
Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
He's aiming to be the first hybrid PM. Two days a week he will be PM on Teams or Zoom only. Maybe.
He's definitely standing down as Mayor of Manchester?
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He's going to have to be down in the Commons frequently, and unless he moves Whitehall entire up north the whole machinery of government is there. He's hardly going to commute every day.
I'm certain he'll end up sleeping many nights in Number Ten, but I guess when I was working in London during the week for months I didn't move there.
We'll see how long this lasts. I can imagine some of the papers being very interested in where he is sleeping each night now.
I worked in London with a couple of people who commuted weekly and stayed in a flat during the week, returning home at the weekend. I guess it depends where he calls home.
What is more interesting is that if Burnham will not be using Chequers at weekends, then he can give it as a consolation prize to a Cabinet member (or even a former Prime Minister).
Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.
FFS.
Focus on something important for a change.
Exactly, we should really be focusing on debating the merits of all the policies he promises, even though we know he won't be able to deliver them and will be kicked out in 18 months anyway.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
Really? Sounds more like he will do a weekly commute to London, stopping over for 3-4 nights, as thousands do.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
7-8 hours on the West Coast mainline every day or did Sunak leave the keys to the chopper?
Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.
If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.
I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.
I thought the Basic Law was to do with beer but he is an economist:
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 1h Andy Burnham refreshingly speaks human. But put aside the creation of No 10 North . The promise today to introduce something equivalent to Germany’s Article 107 of its Basic Law, equalising the resource available to every German region, is mind-blowing. This is real levelling up
A serious question for you: do you really believe a non-negligible number of non-citizens vote in US elections? If so, how are they able to avoid detection? And if not, what's the rationale for imposing draconian measures?
President Trump's Truth Social account is full of his reactions to various defeats and victories in the Supreme Court as it wraps things up for holibobs. I can't be bothered to go through them.
Has he had any victories lately?
There's a theory that the SC has given the liberals the voting case decision, as they are softening up public opinion, since they're intending to do away with birthright citizenship, which would be a massively controversial (and constitutionally extremely dubious) decision.
The estimate is 100,000 Chinese nationals giving birth in the US every year.
Kids who wil grow up in China, learning Chinese values, but have a right to live and vote in the US once they turn 18.
I thought the Basic Law was to do with beer but he is an economist:
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 1h Andy Burnham refreshingly speaks human. But put aside the creation of No 10 North . The promise today to introduce something equivalent to Germany’s Article 107 of its Basic Law, equalising the resource available to every German region, is mind-blowing. This is real levelling up
Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.
If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.
I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.
Clarence House is a few minutes walk from Buckingham Palace, Manchester is the other side of the country from Downing St
Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.
If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.
I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.
The role of Prime Minister is a bit different. Where are all the other cabinet ministers going to be? If the PM is mostly in Manchester, but the Commons is in Westminster, what does that say about the primacy of Parliament? And security for all this is going to be a nightmare.
Can you lead a government from a distance of 150 miles?
I'm open to the idea of moving government, the whole thing, away from London, but this looks like a gimmick.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
7-8 hours on the West Coast mainline every day or did Sunak leave the keys to the chopper?
Appalling - why did you not think to quote the illustrious Austrian philosopher on the matter?
Comments
Japan are playing well though, as I thought they would.
Not a major player in Fiscal Corner.
So long as those investors were reassured that the CGT changes would hold for more than two years until the next government reverses it.
Millions of Europeans including Scot’s and Irish crossed the Atlantic and their children became citizens?
Peter.
Several big companies are currently under bid and this is just a rolling thing
If the UK won’t value them others will.
She was High Sheriff and a Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Surrey in the early 2000s.
Want to see trillions of taxable income suddenly magically become capital gains just like that? Then abolish CGT. No amount of anti avoidance legislation can vanquish human nature.
(I’ll get my coat)
OTOH, I think the lesson from other countries is personal taxation is far better than taxes on businesses - and almost all of my capital gains (except my house) are overseas equities, which doesn’t help the UK economy too much. And it’s a deeply regressive cut, all held equal.
Edit: plus MelonB’s obvious point
I'm being a productive member of society earning plenty of money. And the government takes almost 50% of it. Why should capital gains be tax free? Subject to indexation and at a sensible rate, but I fail to see why there should be such a large relative subsidy of capital versus labour.
Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
— Andy Burnham plans to have a deputy No. 10 chief of staff based in Manchester
And Roberts will be writing the opinion.
But rewriting the plain text of the constitution itself is well beyond that.
For the moment it's enough to start reminding us our cup is half full, not half empty, that adversarial knockabout is for losers, and form a miraculously good team. He will be better at team building than Starmer, not only because he could not be worse but because of who he is. Nice to have a leader in waiting who is comfortable with himself and with the human race. What a contrast with Starmer, Kemi and Farage.
And who's not speaking up about it? The CEOs of major biopharma companies.
Lowe calls this "odd," apparently using the word the same way I do. (It translates to "batshit crazy.")
He points out:
"(1) the great majority of the employees at these companies came through that exact funding system at some point in their careers, and (2) since the industry depends on the basic science research funded this way to make its own advances in applied and clinical applications."
He has an explanation, though. He thinks they're all scared.
https://x.com/matthewherper/status/2071625539342004360
It would make him the first PM since Harold Wilson not to live in No 10'
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2071656704941441060?s=20
2-1
Japan ran out of energy I think.
But like I said in my first post, there are a number of other reasons why it isnt a great idea. And ISAs already play that role.
Support: 46%
Oppose: 39%'
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2071621980378239486?s=20
EDIT: Add Alito’s dad and maternal grandfather.
"Andy likes and trusts me so much he appointed me to a job a couple of hundred miles away from him."
Latest on Burnham’s plans:
* As PM he will spend a minimum of a day a week in “No.10 North”
* He will not use No.10 as his main residence. His primary home will remain in the North West
* Senior advisors have already begun work on establishing the Northern Downing Street
Presumably it will require significant security and Manc really is not that big so there cannot be that may options.
I'm thinking around Piccadilly somewhere, but nowhere springs to mind (until the Mayfield stuff is ready, but that is years away).
I'm certain he'll end up sleeping many nights in Number Ten, but I guess when I was working in London during the week for months I didn't move there.
We'll see how long this lasts. I can imagine some of the papers being very interested in where he is sleeping each night now.
People can sit there with signs but as long as they don't make a direct verbal request for money (and aren't causing an obstruction), the local Police in East Ham usually leave them alone.
They have their pitches where they think the rich people go - outside the bookies, the 99p shop (not the 89p shop, it's a cut throat world in discount retail) and Lidl. Some travel - the older ones have 60+ Oyster cards, the younger ones just push through the barriers.
FFS.
Focus on something important for a change.
"Resident doctors in England accept pay deal and end strikes"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy01n5z48qo
What is more interesting is that if Burnham will not be using Chequers at weekends, then he can give it as a consolation prize to a Cabinet member (or even a former Prime Minister).
Anything is worth a go at this stage.
If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.
I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.
Will Hutton
@williamnhutton
·
1h
Andy Burnham refreshingly speaks human. But put aside the creation of No 10 North . The promise today to introduce something equivalent to Germany’s Article 107 of its Basic Law, equalising the resource available to every German region, is mind-blowing. This is real levelling up
https://x.com/williamnhutton/status/2071657774254055842
A serious question for you: do you really believe a non-negligible number of non-citizens vote in US elections? If so, how are they able to avoid detection? And if not, what's the rationale for imposing draconian measures?
I don't blame Andy Burnham wanting to say in the North as much as possible.
Recently in London I paid £6 a bottle for a 330ml bottle of Coke plus the service charge!
Should have been the Yates Wine Lodge but thats closed
If you want to change it -and I would support changing it- then get the votes to change it.
Can you lead a government from a distance of 150 miles?
I'm open to the idea of moving government, the whole thing, away from London, but this looks like a gimmick.