Skip to content

Donald Trump is becoming America’s Sir Keir Starmer – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,263
edited 5:39AM in General
Donald Trump is becoming America’s Sir Keir Starmer – politicalbetting.com

Enten on Trump's polling: "It's the worst this century for a president at this point in his second term … Donald John Trump — the worst ever net approval rating among independents at this point in a second term" pic.twitter.com/JfwcYa5ohg

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 29,816
    edited 5:49AM
    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance, facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Not a u turn but certainly a climb down

    Oh, and first.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 13,087
    I wonder how happy Healey will be if Burnham keeps leaping around making promises here and there. The speaker will most likely explode too.

    Meanwhile this deal Trump has done with the Saudis seems another element of basically saying Iran has won, and a very unwise path.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,816
    Omnium said:

    I wonder how happy Healey will be if Burnham keeps leaping around making promises here and there. The speaker will most likely explode too.

    Meanwhile this deal Trump has done with the Saudis seems another element of basically saying Iran has won, and a very unwise path.

    The war was the unwise path. He’s now got to try to extricate himself from it.

    The man is a complete idiot.

    Hopefully the dems take rhe house and the senate and we get two years of a lame duck doing nothing but playing golf.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,579
    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,894
    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Yet he's managed to cut VAT on electricity bills and cap bus fares all without a budget.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 61,005
    Taz said:

    Omnium said:

    I wonder how happy Healey will be if Burnham keeps leaping around making promises here and there. The speaker will most likely explode too.

    Meanwhile this deal Trump has done with the Saudis seems another element of basically saying Iran has won, and a very unwise path.

    The war was the unwise path. He’s now got to try to extricate himself from it.

    The man is a complete idiot.

    Hopefully the dems take rhe house and the senate and we get two years of a lame duck doing nothing but playing golf.
    The US bases are giving no security to the Gulf nations.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,816
    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,816

    Taz said:

    Omnium said:

    I wonder how happy Healey will be if Burnham keeps leaping around making promises here and there. The speaker will most likely explode too.

    Meanwhile this deal Trump has done with the Saudis seems another element of basically saying Iran has won, and a very unwise path.

    The war was the unwise path. He’s now got to try to extricate himself from it.

    The man is a complete idiot.

    Hopefully the dems take rhe house and the senate and we get two years of a lame duck doing nothing but playing golf.
    The US bases are giving no security to the Gulf nations.
    No, they’re just a massive target with the US unable or unwilling to defend its allies.

    What a disaster.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,745
    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    Also, he would have killed for Trump's approval ratings.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,567
    First impressions count .

    I think we saw from the calamitous WFA debacle that once the public make up their mind it’s very hard to move them .

    Burnham and Healey whilst not spending a great deal at least are trying to store up some goodwill .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,236

    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    Also, he would have killed for Trump's approval ratings.
    Surely to kill for Trump’s approval he would have allowed the use of RAF bases for offensive operations?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,614
    As I recall Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but don't actually count as Democrats for voting purposes, at least with some market makers. If that is the case there is zero chance of the Democrats winning the Senate. Even with these 2 it is on a knife edge. Trump's polling figures are appalling but Senators seem to have their own base and may not be as affected by that unpopularity as much as we would assume.

    The Senate is the key because it has the lock (see what I did there?) to the ever more corrupt Supreme Court. The Democrats must be in a position to stop Trump putting yet another lackie in there to plague decisions for another decade. Really, the House is a side show compared with that priority.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,894
    DavidL said:

    As I recall Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but don't actually count as Democrats for voting purposes, at least with some market makers. If that is the case there is zero chance of the Democrats winning the Senate. Even with these 2 it is on a knife edge. Trump's polling figures are appalling but Senators seem to have their own base and may not be as affected by that unpopularity as much as we would assume.

    The Senate is the key because it has the lock (see what I did there?) to the ever more corrupt Supreme Court. The Democrats must be in a position to stop Trump putting yet another lackie in there to plague decisions for another decade. Really, the House is a side show compared with that priority.

    Betfair have changed the rules so they now count as Dems.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,511
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    Also, he would have killed for Trump's approval ratings.
    Surely to kill for Trump’s approval he would have allowed the use of RAF bases for offensive operations?
    But how offensive?

    Operations scale

    - Defensive
    - Slightly sharp defensive operations
    - Quite acerbic defensive operations
    - Frank and free exchange of defensive operations
    - Really rather outspoken defensive operations
    - Yo moma defensive operations

    Etc etc…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,654
    What’s better than another russian WildBerries warehouse being on fire?

    Of course, it’s two russian WildBerries warehouses being on fire!

    https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/2079782896588533846
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,614
    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    It's okay though, because Andy reappoints them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Yet he's managed to cut VAT on electricity bills and cap bus fares all without a budget.
    Together well within the contingency reserve (and the VAT change doesn't happen until a month before the budget anyway).
    Personal allowance changes are costed in the multiple billions.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,624
    Nigelb said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Yet he's managed to cut VAT on electricity bills and cap bus fares all without a budget.
    Together well within the contingency reserve (and the VAT change doesn't happen until a month before the budget anyway).
    Personal allowance changes are costed in the multiple billions.
    Also, a VAT cut can take place immediately. Changes to income tax etc are harder mid-financial year.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    edited 6:42AM
    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    The idea of helping pay for reintroducing indexation of personal allowances by removing the triple lock is not completely unattractive.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,579
    nico67 said:

    First impressions count .

    I think we saw from the calamitous WFA debacle that once the public make up their mind it’s very hard to move them .

    Burnham and Healey whilst not spending a great deal at least are trying to store up some goodwill .

    Small steps

    Inflation unexpectedly continuing to go south against expectations is a positive too. (Burnham will be praying that continues to September when all the various pension indexs are linked to September inflation figure)

    The politician in Burnham , as I suggested yesterday, will want to get the the budger and say we have saved the majority of the population £xxx (I think he'll be looking at £500 as a target) by these simple measures, there may be 10x £50 measures, that will qualify as his "breathing space"...

    Budgets offer bigger more headline measures but if he can continue this "breathing space" theme trough in to 2027 it just starts to drip down like continual short but regular shwers into the public pshyche - far better than one off torrential downpout then drought!

    The Tories can bleat it's uncosted (a) it's costed to a degree (b) the public don't care (c) the Public still don't believe any Tory on the economy., Reform can call for a GE all they like as Farage looks increasingly desperate and yesterdays man.

    What we are seeing is the start of a Government that is far more politically tuned in and whilst it may not be a better one than Starmer, if the public have a modicum of trust and belief it goes a long way. Of course its the job of the right wing media, eg 90% of the media to disparage it and to just find moaners and whingers, but slowly but surely the thought that Government is on your side will permeate.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,816

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    Also, he would have killed for Trump's approval ratings.
    Surely to kill for Trump’s approval he would have allowed the use of RAF bases for offensive operations?
    But how offensive?

    Operations scale

    - Defensive
    - Slightly sharp defensive operations
    - Quite acerbic defensive operations
    - Frank and free exchange of defensive operations
    - Really rather outspoken defensive operations
    - Yo moma defensive operations

    Etc etc…
    Everything is ‘defensive’ if you choose to define it as such.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049

    DavidL said:

    As I recall Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but don't actually count as Democrats for voting purposes, at least with some market makers. If that is the case there is zero chance of the Democrats winning the Senate. Even with these 2 it is on a knife edge. Trump's polling figures are appalling but Senators seem to have their own base and may not be as affected by that unpopularity as much as we would assume.

    The Senate is the key because it has the lock (see what I did there?) to the ever more corrupt Supreme Court. The Democrats must be in a position to stop Trump putting yet another lackie in there to plague decisions for another decade. Really, the House is a side show compared with that priority.

    Betfair have changed the rules so they now count as Dems.
    Against that, there's a strong chance of Fetterman crossing the floor.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,862
    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    I thought they'd all be mad for it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049

    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    Also, he would have killed for Trump's approval ratings.
    That would require a return to two party politics.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    Texas looks a tossup to me.

    The GOP candidate is unprecedentedly weak.
    He's not only corrupt; he's also a wimp.

    Ken Paxton just melted down and stormed out of a press conference after being asked about his 15 houses and alleged voter fraud. ..
    https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/2079637271972622410

    Being unable to brazen out simple questions like that - at a press conference where he's attacking his opponent's record - is just pathetic.
    And he won't debate Talarico.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,511
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    Also, he would have killed for Trump's approval ratings.
    Surely to kill for Trump’s approval he would have allowed the use of RAF bases for offensive operations?
    But how offensive?

    Operations scale

    - Defensive
    - Slightly sharp defensive operations
    - Quite acerbic defensive operations
    - Frank and free exchange of defensive operations
    - Really rather outspoken defensive operations
    - Yo moma defensive operations

    Etc etc…
    Everything is ‘defensive’ if you choose to define it as such.
    The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were defensive, if you look at it the right way.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,624
    Sandpit said:

    What’s better than another russian WildBerries warehouse being on fire?

    Of course, it’s two russian WildBerries warehouses being on fire!

    https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/2079782896588533846

    If they really were a logistics operation for the Russian Army they would be able to get some air defence equipment out of stock. 14 day return if not used.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,613
    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 61,005
    Nigelb said:

    Texas looks a tossup to me.

    The GOP candidate is unprecedentedly weak.
    He's not only corrupt; he's also a wimp.

    Ken Paxton just melted down and stormed out of a press conference after being asked about his 15 houses and alleged voter fraud. ..
    https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/2079637271972622410

    Being unable to brazen out simple questions like that - at a press conference where he's attacking his opponent's record - is just pathetic.
    And he won't debate Talarico.

    Texas deserves all it gets if it elects Paxton. Truly, an appalling candidate. Even Reform couldn't find anybody as bad.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,816
    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    Why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? Well, many do, of course, if they have other income including private pensions. The problem with every pensioner paying income tax on the state pension, should that rise above the personal allowance, is that either HMRC has to deal with millions more self-assessments, or the DWP has to pay pensions net of tax, like PAYE. Either is possible but neither is easy. The second is easier.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,452
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049

    Nigelb said:

    Texas looks a tossup to me.

    The GOP candidate is unprecedentedly weak.
    He's not only corrupt; he's also a wimp.

    Ken Paxton just melted down and stormed out of a press conference after being asked about his 15 houses and alleged voter fraud. ..
    https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/2079637271972622410

    Being unable to brazen out simple questions like that - at a press conference where he's attacking his opponent's record - is just pathetic.
    And he won't debate Talarico.

    Texas deserves all it gets if it elects Paxton. Truly, an appalling candidate. Even Reform couldn't find anybody as bad.
    That in itself is no barrier to election in Texas, but it might just make the difference between Talarico getting close, and actually winning.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    Interesting.

    Samsung is in talks to invest hundreds of millions of euros in the AI start-up Mistral at a roughly €20bn valuation
    https://x.com/IvanLevingston/status/2079810399734554759

    A small deal by AI standards, but there's an obvious desire to have an alternative to both the US and China.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,452

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    Why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? Well, many do, of course, if they have other income including private pensions. The problem with every pensioner paying income tax on the state pension, should that rise above the personal allowance, is that either HMRC has to deal with millions more self-assessments, or the DWP has to pay pensions net of tax, like PAYE. Either is possible but neither is easy. The second is easier.
    Or the triple lock is capped at the tax allowance, an upgrade, quadruple lock.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,236
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Texas looks a tossup to me.

    The GOP candidate is unprecedentedly weak.
    He's not only corrupt; he's also a wimp.

    Ken Paxton just melted down and stormed out of a press conference after being asked about his 15 houses and alleged voter fraud. ..
    https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/2079637271972622410

    Being unable to brazen out simple questions like that - at a press conference where he's attacking his opponent's record - is just pathetic.
    And he won't debate Talarico.

    Texas deserves all it gets if it elects Paxton. Truly, an appalling candidate. Even Reform couldn't find anybody as bad.
    That in itself is no barrier to election in Texas, but it might just make the difference between Talarico getting close, and actually winning.
    Will it make the difference between Abbott falsifying the election return or not though?

    We must remember he will try every trick in the book to avoid electing a Dem. If it’s a close result expect chicanery.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    Samsung is in talks to invest hundreds of millions of euros in the AI start-up Mistral at a roughly €20bn valuation
    https://x.com/IvanLevingston/status/2079810399734554759

    A small deal by AI standards, but there's an obvious desire to have an alternative to both the US and China.

    That goes for military kit, too.

    The UK, Italy & Japan announce they’re accepting Canada becoming the 1st observer nation in the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) meant to jointly develop a 6th-generation fighter jet

    Canada will get privileged access & paving the way for future access to the project

    https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2079574622136041636
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Texas looks a tossup to me.

    The GOP candidate is unprecedentedly weak.
    He's not only corrupt; he's also a wimp.

    Ken Paxton just melted down and stormed out of a press conference after being asked about his 15 houses and alleged voter fraud. ..
    https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/2079637271972622410

    Being unable to brazen out simple questions like that - at a press conference where he's attacking his opponent's record - is just pathetic.
    And he won't debate Talarico.

    Texas deserves all it gets if it elects Paxton. Truly, an appalling candidate. Even Reform couldn't find anybody as bad.
    That in itself is no barrier to election in Texas, but it might just make the difference between Talarico getting close, and actually winning.
    Will it make the difference between Abbott falsifying the election return or not though?

    We must remember he will try every trick in the book to avoid electing a Dem. If it’s a close result expect chicanery.
    That also is more than likely.
    The real question is not whether, but how far MAGA will go in trying illegitimately to tip the balance in November,
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,624
    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    It didn't work then if you look at the comparative house price inflation London v North West.

    Are we seeing how shallow Burnham is now. He's making Kemi look statesman like.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,624
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    Samsung is in talks to invest hundreds of millions of euros in the AI start-up Mistral at a roughly €20bn valuation
    https://x.com/IvanLevingston/status/2079810399734554759

    A small deal by AI standards, but there's an obvious desire to have an alternative to both the US and China.

    Interesting article in The Atlantic on the AI bubble:

    https://bsky.app/profile/theatlantic.com/post/3mr7e7yv3b22j
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,542

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    Why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? Well, many do, of course, if they have other income including private pensions. The problem with every pensioner paying income tax on the state pension, should that rise above the personal allowance, is that either HMRC has to deal with millions more self-assessments, or the DWP has to pay pensions net of tax, like PAYE. Either is possible but neither is easy. The second is easier.
    I suggest that the threshold for pensioners paying 40% income tax should be reduced. Simpler than messing about with NI.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,613
    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,257

    Nigelb said:

    Texas looks a tossup to me.

    The GOP candidate is unprecedentedly weak.
    He's not only corrupt; he's also a wimp.

    Ken Paxton just melted down and stormed out of a press conference after being asked about his 15 houses and alleged voter fraud. ..
    https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/2079637271972622410

    Being unable to brazen out simple questions like that - at a press conference where he's attacking his opponent's record - is just pathetic.
    And he won't debate Talarico.

    Texas deserves all it gets if it elects Paxton. Truly, an appalling candidate. Even Reform couldn't find anybody as bad.
    ..though they'll have a bloody good go.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,654
    Haha, even the American news networks are now talking about Downing Street’s longest occupant.

    https://x.com/cbsnews/status/2079375304527610360
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    Dopermean said:

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    Why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? Well, many do, of course, if they have other income including private pensions. The problem with every pensioner paying income tax on the state pension, should that rise above the personal allowance, is that either HMRC has to deal with millions more self-assessments, or the DWP has to pay pensions net of tax, like PAYE. Either is possible but neither is easy. The second is easier.
    Or the triple lock is capped at the tax allowance, an upgrade, quadruple lock.
    That would only work if the personal allowance rises with the state pension, rather than freezing the pension to the allowance, but yes, that could be a way of ending the current triple lock by replacing one of its components with a commitment to raise the personal allowance. Of course, this would not silence the pundits and trolls pointing to the rising cost of pensions.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,894
    edited 7:30AM
    Photo du Jour: Members of the press photograph a dead mouse caught by Larry the Downing St cat (left). By Stefan Rousseau/PA



    https://x.com/StefanRousseau/status/2079591335351206351
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,624
    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    That just demonstrates what a bad tax Stamp Duty is. It is a tax on mobility.

    As London house prices are currently falling, it may not be a bad time to be in the NW.

    Burnham should just rrcruit new staff for No 10 North. There should be a fair number who are ambitious and talented with experience of him from the Mayoral office.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,693

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    That headline is exceedingly unfair.

    Starmer is none of a sex offender, a traitor, or suffering from increasingly obvious mental decline.

    Also, he sacks his fraudsters.

    Also, he would have killed for Trump's approval ratings.
    Surely to kill for Trump’s approval he would have allowed the use of RAF bases for offensive operations?
    But how offensive?

    Operations scale

    - Defensive
    - Slightly sharp defensive operations
    - Quite acerbic defensive operations
    - Frank and free exchange of defensive operations
    - Really rather outspoken defensive operations
    - Yo moma defensive operations

    Etc etc…
    At the top of the scale there's posting on social media.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,624
    edited 7:32AM

    Photo du Jour: Members of the press photograph a dead mouse caught by Larry the Downing St cat (left). By Stefan Rousseau/PA



    https://x.com/StefanRousseau/status/2079591335351206351

    Burnham's team already producing results!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,358
    edited 7:36AM
    Burnham may not have much to play with until his first budget, but in the meantime he's using the limited options he's got extremely well.

    Today's announcement on the £2 bus fare cap is well targeted. The prime beneficiaries are going to be those who are younger or on lower incomes (because car ownership is highly correlated with income) and who are in work or studying and rely on the bus for that. Strivers who need to make work pay. But it still applies across the board if you're below pensionable age, so no-one's really going to object. There are also indirect benefits - an upturn in bus usage could bring back some services previously lost or increase the frequency of services - even pensioners relying on buses will benefit if that happens. So it's well targeted in terms of rewarding those who need to be rewarded, and well targeted in terms of likely political impact.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,894
    Foxy said:

    Photo du Jour: Members of the press photograph a dead mouse caught by Larry the Downing St cat (left). By Stefan Rousseau/PA



    https://x.com/StefanRousseau/status/2079591335351206351

    Burnham's team already producing results!
    Indeed, I've mentioned before I once saw Larry see a mouse then all he did was on roll on his back.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,654
    edited 7:40AM

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    I’m not sure there’s many that disagree with someone who knowingly kills a police officer being imprisoned for several decades.

    Certainly long enough that the officer’s parents aren’t still alive to see their adult child’s killers released from prison.

    Turn shorter sentences for non-violent crimes into serious community service, and build more prisons - even temporary prisons on military land - before letting killers and sex offenders out early.

    They could even think really outside the box, and have the prisoners living in the Portakabins help build their new permanent prison.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,693

    Burnham may not have much to play with until his first budget, but in the meantime he's using the limited options he's got extremely well.

    Today's announcement on the £2 bus fare cap is well targeted. The prime beneficiaries are going to be those who are younger or on lower incomes (because car ownership is highly correlated with income) and who are in work or studying and rely on the bus for that. Strivers who need to make work pay. But it still applies across the board if you're below pensionable age, so no-one's really going to object. There are also indirect benefits - an upturn in bus usage could bring back some services previously lost or increase the frequency of services - even pensioners relying on buses will benefit if that happens. So it's well targeted in terms of rewarding those who need to be rewarded, and well targeted in terms of likely political impact.

    Who picks up the slack here? Assuming bus companies charge fares that keep them in business without ripping off their passengers, does it imply staff pay won't rise as much?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,452
    Brixian59 said:

    nico67 said:

    First impressions count .

    I think we saw from the calamitous WFA debacle that once the public make up their mind it’s very hard to move them .

    Burnham and Healey whilst not spending a great deal at least are trying to store up some goodwill .

    Small steps

    Inflation unexpectedly continuing to go south against expectations is a positive too. (Burnham will be praying that continues to September when all the various pension indexs are linked to September inflation figure)

    The politician in Burnham , as I suggested yesterday, will want to get the the budger and say we have saved the majority of the population £xxx (I think he'll be looking at £500 as a target) by these simple measures, there may be 10x £50 measures, that will qualify as his "breathing space"...

    Budgets offer bigger more headline measures but if he can continue this "breathing space" theme trough in to 2027 it just starts to drip down like continual short but regular shwers into the public pshyche - far better than one off torrential downpout then drought!

    The Tories can bleat it's uncosted (a) it's costed to a degree (b) the public don't care (c) the Public still don't believe any Tory on the economy., Reform can call for a GE all they like as Farage looks increasingly desperate and yesterdays man.

    What we are seeing is the start of a Government that is far more politically tuned in and whilst it may not be a better one than Starmer, if the public have a modicum of trust and belief it goes a long way. Of course its the job of the right wing media, eg 90% of the media to disparage it and to just find moaners and whingers, but slowly but surely the thought that Government is on your side will permeate.
    £500 times 70 million people is £35 billion. Even £500 times 20 million households in £10 billion. If there were that much cash down the back of the sofa, Rachel Reeves would still be popular.

    There's a current in British thinking that says that bad things shouldn't happen to anyone good ever. It's not particularly left or right, though it manifests in different ways. For various reasons, Andy Burnham has ridden that current all the way to Downing g Street. It's much easier to do as a Metro Mayor, much harder as PM.

    (The right wing version goes something like this. Sir Marcus Fox once told Peter Lilley that it was easy to cut a billion from welfare. Lilley (no wet liberal he) replied that meant a thousand pounds from a million poor families so no it wasn't easy.)
  • eekeek Posts: 34,696

    Foxy said:

    Photo du Jour: Members of the press photograph a dead mouse caught by Larry the Downing St cat (left). By Stefan Rousseau/PA



    https://x.com/StefanRousseau/status/2079591335351206351

    Burnham's team already producing results!
    Indeed, I've mentioned before I once saw Larry see a mouse then all he did was on roll on his back.
    Isn’t this Larry 2 - the story goes that the original died and being replaced in the early days of Covid
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    Samsung is in talks to invest hundreds of millions of euros in the AI start-up Mistral at a roughly €20bn valuation
    https://x.com/IvanLevingston/status/2079810399734554759

    A small deal by AI standards, but there's an obvious desire to have an alternative to both the US and China.

    Interesting article in The Atlantic on the AI bubble:

    https://bsky.app/profile/theatlantic.com/post/3mr7e7yv3b22j
    Tech companies are generating large revenues - and will continue to do so.
    Bubbles are pretty well unavoidable when a new technology comes along - that's been true at the very least since the original rail boom.

    It's never meant that a new technology doesn't change the world.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,720
    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    Indeed. See the disasterous relocation of the ONS:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34983416

    "The ONS moved its statistical functions out of London in 2007, with most of them going to Newport.

    About 90% of London-based staff chose to leave ONS rather than relocate."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,257
    Foxy said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    That just demonstrates what a bad tax Stamp Duty is. It is a tax on mobility.

    As London house prices are currently falling, it may not be a bad time to be in the NW.

    Burnham should just rrcruit new staff for No 10 North. There should be a fair number who are ambitious and talented with experience of him from the Mayoral office.
    Some dewy-eyed fans of Starmer (yes, they're still out there) recounted that SKS personally sent handwritten thank you notes to each of the No 10 staff which numbered in the hundreds.
    Hundreds?! Fuxake, did he have personal peelers of grapes and a groom of the stool?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,452
    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    And if you want an example of how it's not trivial to relocate, consider what the Prime Minister has said about moving to the base of his new job.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,613

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    I’m not sure there’s many that disagree with someone who knowingly kills a police officer being imprisoned for several decades.

    Certainly long enough that the officer’s parents aren’t still alive to see their adult child’s killers released from prison.

    Turn shorter sentences for non-violent crimes into serious community service, and build more prisons - even temporary prisons on military land - before letting killers and sex offenders out early.

    They could even think really outside the box, and have the prisoners living in the Portakabins help build their new permanent prison.
    Yes, that's the point. There are always emotive crimes like this. As for building more prisons, yes. But where? Remember it needs to be somewhere to where prison staff can commute on their £2 bus rides. Perhaps there will be space on industrial estates now we've given up on industry.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,452
    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    The rational thing is for pensioners to pay tax on their income in the same way as everyone else. But as we saw with the WFA debacle, rationality goes out the window when it comes to pensioners.

    I continue to blame Clive Dunn and St Winifred's School Choir.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    You're talking about two different things.
    The early release scheme simple doesn't apply to the driver, so there's no decision to be made.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,654
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    9% of that that 10% should be easy. Tell their countries of origin they must accept them back and lock them up if requested, as a condition of issuing incoming visas to tourists and/or receiving international aid.

    If you’re a foreigner sentenced to imprisonment, you’ve forfeited your right to remain in the country. Knowing that you’ll serve your sentence in your own country will probably help moderate certain behaviours among recent immigrants too. British prisons are 5* hotels to most countries.

    There will be a few that the UK want to keep in prison, such as well-connected fraudsters or politically-motivated violent criminals, but the vast majority can better serve their sentences in their own countries.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    Yes, that's what I said. The public wants long sentences. That is why there will always be objections to early release, parole, or just release. Ironically, increasing sentences means we have run out of prison space so need to release prisoners early. Catch 22 of the criminal justice system.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,696

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    The rational thing is for pensioners to pay tax on their income in the same way as everyone else. But as we saw with the WFA debacle, rationality goes out the window when it comes to pensioners.

    I continue to blame Clive Dunn and St Winifred's School Choir.
    I blame Reeves for simply not reversing Hunt’s uncosted employee NI cuts that removed all headroom
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049
    Foxy said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    That just demonstrates what a bad tax Stamp Duty is. It is a tax on mobility.

    As London house prices are currently falling, it may not be a bad time to be in the NW.

    Burnham should just rrcruit new staff for No 10 North. There should be a fair number who are ambitious and talented with experience of him from the Mayoral office.
    If he gets reelected, it would be a big career boost for those who do take it up.

    The idea of creating a centre of political power outside of London is a good one, but it will take more than three years to embed.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    9% of that that 10% should be easy. Tell their countries of origin they must accept them back and lock them up if requested, as a condition of issuing incoming visas to tourists and/or receiving international aid.

    If you’re a foreigner sentenced to imprisonment, you’ve forfeited your right to remain in the country. Knowing that you’ll serve your sentence in your own country will probably help moderate certain behaviours among recent immigrants too. British prisons are 5* hotels to most countries.

    There will be a few that the UK want to keep in prison, such as well-connected fraudsters or politically-motivated violent criminals, but the vast majority can better serve their sentences in their own countries.
    Good thinking. Except for the barring tourism part. We want tourists. They are good for the economy, good for the country. That is why Herr Leon and Monsieur le Leon are given free holidays to encourage their countrymen to visit.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,613
    Nigelb said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    You're talking about two different things.
    The early release scheme simple doesn't apply to the driver, so there's no decision to be made.
    Indeed; I know that. But Heidi Alexander made the point. Which makes me think they're behind the curve on this one....
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,624
    carnforth said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    Indeed. See the disasterous relocation of the ONS:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34983416

    "The ONS moved its statistical functions out of London in 2007, with most of them going to Newport.

    About 90% of London-based staff chose to leave ONS rather than relocate."
    One way to cut the size of the Civil Service - keep moving the offices.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    The rational thing is for pensioners to pay tax on their income in the same way as everyone else. But as we saw with the WFA debacle, rationality goes out the window when it comes to pensioners.

    I continue to blame Clive Dunn and St Winifred's School Choir.
    Like everyone else pays income tax is PAYE or self-assessment but the system is not set up for either. PAYE-alike will be easier but politically awkward because the headline pension rate will then be the post-tax amount, not the pre-tax figure, because DWP will only ever pay the former.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,624
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    Even if you bring immigration down to zero increasing sentences by, say, 10%, will simply fill in the gap. Every MP wants more prisons...just not in their constituency or paid for by their constituents.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    That just demonstrates what a bad tax Stamp Duty is. It is a tax on mobility.

    As London house prices are currently falling, it may not be a bad time to be in the NW.

    Burnham should just rrcruit new staff for No 10 North. There should be a fair number who are ambitious and talented with experience of him from the Mayoral office.
    If he gets reelected, it would be a big career boost for those who do take it up.

    The idea of creating a centre of political power outside of London is a good one, but it will take more than three years to embed.
    And what a fantastic coincidence that the new centre is smack bang in Burnham's own power base!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,322
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    Another thing the public want is no prisons in their neighbourhood. Chasing what the public wants is rarely achievable.

    We need to do a mix of things, much faster justice, more prisons, more investment in rehabilitation and probation, and reform of suspended sentencing so that they are suspended for a decade or two rather than a year or two.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,845

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    9% of that that 10% should be easy. Tell their countries of origin they must accept them back and lock them up if requested, as a condition of issuing incoming visas to tourists and/or receiving international aid.

    If you’re a foreigner sentenced to imprisonment, you’ve forfeited your right to remain in the country. Knowing that you’ll serve your sentence in your own country will probably help moderate certain behaviours among recent immigrants too. British prisons are 5* hotels to most countries.

    There will be a few that the UK want to keep in prison, such as well-connected fraudsters or politically-motivated violent criminals, but the vast majority can better serve their sentences in their own countries.
    Good thinking. Except for the barring tourism part. We want tourists. They are good for the economy, good for the country. That is why Herr Leon and Monsieur le Leon are given free holidays to encourage their countrymen to visit.
    I don't know for sure, buy instinctively I'd say the countries that criminals from are quite different to the countries which tourists come from.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,337
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Photo du Jour: Members of the press photograph a dead mouse caught by Larry the Downing St cat (left). By Stefan Rousseau/PA



    https://x.com/StefanRousseau/status/2079591335351206351

    Burnham's team already producing results!
    Indeed, I've mentioned before I once saw Larry see a mouse then all he did was on roll on his back.
    Isn’t this Larry 2 - the story goes that the original died and being replaced in the early days of Covid
    Or was that the prime minister?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,767
    Good morning

    Burnham has started well even though his giveaways are tiny and they do have to be paid for.

    However, far larger questions loom on the horizon which will require radical thinking on merging tax and NI, equalising pension tax relief, ending the triple lock, and reducing welfare spending

    In the last month we have travelled first class to Euston for the day and in the first case the train broke down between Chester and Crewe resulting in the journey terminating in Crewe

    Yesterday signal failure around Stafford caused immense delays on the WCML with our return journey arriving in Colwyn Bay 75 minutes late

    The result is that in these 2 journeys Avanti will have refunded us £625 and the cost to the railway industry must be in the billions

    Whether it is in public or private ownership until network rail resolves near daily problems and the rolling stock's efficiency is immeasurably improved railways are going to drain the exchequer
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,452
    eek said:

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    The rational thing is for pensioners to pay tax on their income in the same way as everyone else. But as we saw with the WFA debacle, rationality goes out the window when it comes to pensioners.

    I continue to blame Clive Dunn and St Winifred's School Choir.
    I blame Reeves for simply not reversing Hunt’s uncosted employee NI cuts that removed all headroom
    Probably less harmful, though hardly cost-free. Which was part of the point, of course.

    Basically, Hunt and Sunak were both extremely nasty pieces of work in the second half of their time in office. Neither of them has properly been called out on it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,533
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Photo du Jour: Members of the press photograph a dead mouse caught by Larry the Downing St cat (left). By Stefan Rousseau/PA



    https://x.com/StefanRousseau/status/2079591335351206351

    Burnham's team already producing results!
    Indeed, I've mentioned before I once saw Larry see a mouse then all he did was on roll on his back.
    Isn’t this Larry 2 - the story goes that the original died and being replaced in the early days of Covid
    Surely there'd have been a state funeral if Larry had died?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    That just demonstrates what a bad tax Stamp Duty is. It is a tax on mobility.

    As London house prices are currently falling, it may not be a bad time to be in the NW.

    Burnham should just rrcruit new staff for No 10 North. There should be a fair number who are ambitious and talented with experience of him from the Mayoral office.
    If he gets reelected, it would be a big career boost for those who do take it up.

    The idea of creating a centre of political power outside of London is a good one, but it will take more than three years to embed.
    And what a fantastic coincidence that the new centre is smack bang in Burnham's own power base!
    Well indeed, but it simply wouldn't happen otherwise.
    Sometimes self-interest aligns with the public interest; IMO, that's the case here.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 9,226

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    I’m not sure there’s many that disagree with someone who knowingly kills a police officer being imprisoned for several decades.

    Certainly long enough that the officer’s parents aren’t still alive to see their adult child’s killers released from prison.

    Turn shorter sentences for non-violent crimes into serious community service, and build more prisons - even temporary prisons on military land - before letting killers and sex offenders out early.

    They could even think really outside the box, and have the prisoners living in the Portakabins help build their new permanent prison.
    Yes, that's the point. There are always emotive crimes like this. As for building more prisons, yes. But where? Remember it needs to be somewhere to where prison staff can commute on their £2 bus rides. Perhaps there will be space on industrial estates now we've given up on industry.
    Reopen the mines, build cells in them. Job creation and a punishment the voting public will like. Can’t get contraband in via drones. No mobile signal. Prisoners can opt for a shorter sentence in the dark or longer sentences in prisons with natural light.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,049

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Photo du Jour: Members of the press photograph a dead mouse caught by Larry the Downing St cat (left). By Stefan Rousseau/PA



    https://x.com/StefanRousseau/status/2079591335351206351

    Burnham's team already producing results!
    Indeed, I've mentioned before I once saw Larry see a mouse then all he did was on roll on his back.
    Isn’t this Larry 2 - the story goes that the original died and being replaced in the early days of Covid
    Or was that the prime minister?
    Yes but Larry II is an improvement...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,624

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    I’m not sure there’s many that disagree with someone who knowingly kills a police officer being imprisoned for several decades.

    Certainly long enough that the officer’s parents aren’t still alive to see their adult child’s killers released from prison.

    Turn shorter sentences for non-violent crimes into serious community service, and build more prisons - even temporary prisons on military land - before letting killers and sex offenders out early.

    They could even think really outside the box, and have the prisoners living in the Portakabins help build their new permanent prison.
    Yes, that's the point. There are always emotive crimes like this. As for building more prisons, yes. But where? Remember it needs to be somewhere to where prison staff can commute on their £2 bus rides. Perhaps there will be space on industrial estates now we've given up on industry.
    Also we have to recruit Prison Officers from abroad, mostly West Africa.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,754
    carnforth said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    Indeed. See the disasterous relocation of the ONS:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34983416

    "The ONS moved its statistical functions out of London in 2007, with most of them going to Newport.

    About 90% of London-based staff chose to leave ONS rather than relocate."
    Manchester is a somewhat more attractive and interesting location than Newport. It also has the advantage of having a large population to recruit from and fill any gaps caused by those not wanting to relocate from London.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,654
    edited 8:13AM

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    9% of that that 10% should be easy. Tell their countries of origin they must accept them back and lock them up if requested, as a condition of issuing incoming visas to tourists and/or receiving international aid.

    If you’re a foreigner sentenced to imprisonment, you’ve forfeited your right to remain in the country. Knowing that you’ll serve your sentence in your own country will probably help moderate certain behaviours among recent immigrants too. British prisons are 5* hotels to most countries.

    There will be a few that the UK want to keep in prison, such as well-connected fraudsters or politically-motivated violent criminals, but the vast majority can better serve their sentences in their own countries.
    Good thinking. Except for the barring tourism part. We want tourists. They are good for the economy, good for the country. That is why Herr Leon and Monsieur le Leon are given free holidays to encourage their countrymen to visit.
    Take an obvious example like Bangladesh.

    Bangladeshi ‘tourists’ have a very different profile from most Western European, American, Japanese tourists who are there to see London and Edinburgh and Stratford and Stonehenge.

    Incoming UK tourists from Bangladesh are the middle and upper classes who can afford the flight, are often visiting UK-based family and friends and business partners, and have a bad record of overstaying, absconding, and blackmarket employment.

    The UK blocking incoming visas and aid then becomes a political problem for Bangladeshi politicians in Bangladesh.

    Pull the data of the most populous foreign nationals in UK prisons, start from the top and work down.

    You can also go further and start taxing “remittances” to certain countries from the UK. All options should be on the table for unco-operative countries.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,624
    DougSeal said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    Even if you bring immigration down to zero increasing sentences by, say, 10%, will simply fill in the gap. Every MP wants more prisons...just not in their constituency or paid for by their constituents.
    I see Abdul Fatawu has signed for the Tractor Boys as part of our fire sale. Great signing, with bags of room for further improvement. Great to watch.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,754

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    The rational thing is for pensioners to pay tax on their income in the same way as everyone else. But as we saw with the WFA debacle, rationality goes out the window when it comes to pensioners.

    I continue to blame Clive Dunn and St Winifred's School Choir.
    But we do pay tax on our income in exactly the same way as everybody else. I pay exactly the same amount of income tax as I would if I were still working - my state pension is pretty much my personal allowance, and my company pension is taxed at 20%.
    The only difference is that I don't pay NI. Maybe I should.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,717
    Trump's net approval rating is now even worse than Nixon and George W Bush's were at this point in their second terms. Yet he doesn't have to run for re election as he is now term limited being in his second term, whereas Starmer as UK PM could have run again if he wished. So his poor approval ratings will likely be Vance's problem at the next presidential election.

    In terms of the US Senate, the Maine (once the new Democrat nominee is selected) and Texas races will likely be key. If the Democrats win both then they could take the Senate. Even if they do win both chambers of Congress though they will likely only be able to block Trump's agenda not impeach and convict him which requires a 2/3 Senate majority to do. They would still likely be below the 56 Senators the Democrats had in 1972 which helped force Nixon's resignation in 1973 (along with the fact Nixon had fewer loyalist GOP Senators and Congressmen than Trump does)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,717

    Good morning

    Burnham has started well even though his giveaways are tiny and they do have to be paid for.

    However, far larger questions loom on the horizon which will require radical thinking on merging tax and NI, equalising pension tax relief, ending the triple lock, and reducing welfare spending

    In the last month we have travelled first class to Euston for the day and in the first case the train broke down between Chester and Crewe resulting in the journey terminating in Crewe

    Yesterday signal failure around Stafford caused immense delays on the WCML with our return journey arriving in Colwyn Bay 75 minutes late

    The result is that in these 2 journeys Avanti will have refunded us £625 and the cost to the railway industry must be in the billions

    Whether it is in public or private ownership until network rail resolves near daily problems and the rolling stock's efficiency is immeasurably improved railways are going to drain the exchequer

    Which he will do none of, certainly not ending the triple lock and reducing welfare spending. What Burnham's government will likely do though is further put up tax on the wealthy and high earners
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,257
    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    9% of that that 10% should be easy. Tell their countries of origin they must accept them back and lock them up if requested, as a condition of issuing incoming visas to tourists and/or receiving international aid.

    If you’re a foreigner sentenced to imprisonment, you’ve forfeited your right to remain in the country. Knowing that you’ll serve your sentence in your own country will probably help moderate certain behaviours among recent immigrants too. British prisons are 5* hotels to most countries.

    There will be a few that the UK want to keep in prison, such as well-connected fraudsters or politically-motivated violent criminals, but the vast majority can better serve their sentences in their own countries.
    Welcome home, Shamima!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 25,096
    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    Poppycock. Sentences are what the public want.

    Two better solutions:

    Build more prisons
    Cut prison population by bringing immigration down - more 10% of prisoners are foreign nationals

    Otherwise those in charge will be seen as soft on crime.
    9% of that that 10% should be easy. Tell their countries of origin they must accept them back and lock them up if requested, as a condition of issuing incoming visas to tourists and/or receiving international aid.

    If you’re a foreigner sentenced to imprisonment, you’ve forfeited your right to remain in the country. Knowing that you’ll serve your sentence in your own country will probably help moderate certain behaviours among recent immigrants too. British prisons are 5* hotels to most countries.

    There will be a few that the UK want to keep in prison, such as well-connected fraudsters or politically-motivated violent criminals, but the vast majority can better serve their sentences in their own countries.
    Good thinking. Except for the barring tourism part. We want tourists. They are good for the economy, good for the country. That is why Herr Leon and Monsieur le Leon are given free holidays to encourage their countrymen to visit.
    I don't know for sure, buy instinctively I'd say the countries that criminals from are quite different to the countries which tourists come from.
    London is said to be one of the larger cities in France at election time, due to the number of French people who live there. If we assume that those French people in London are basically normal people then they will have normal rates of criminal offending, and with such a large population you'd expect a fair number to end up in prison.

    The other thing to bear in mind is that if Britain starts sending Australians and Spaniards it has imprisoned back to Australia and Spain to serve their prison sentences, then we can expect those countries to reciprocate. The net reduction in prisoner numbers will inevitably be lower.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,654
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Taz said:

    Mortimer said:

    A bit of good news on inflation; will be interesting to see if that, and the high of taking power, will blind Burnham et al to the glaring bear trap which is steps away.....

    Early release: https://news.sky.com/story/pc-andrew-harpers-killers-may-be-eligible-for-early-release-government-confirms-13565822

    ‘May be’

    I think not even this govt would release them.
    Heidi Alexander on Today just now said that it wouldn't apply to the person behind the wheel.

    If they think that is going to cut the mustard, they won't last very long in power.
    The trouble with any early-release scheme, or parole, or just releases in general is there are always cases where the victims (and press and public) will object. Ironically, if we'd not ratcheted up sentences to assuage newspaper-led public opinion, we'd not have the current crunch on prison cells.
    I’m not sure there’s many that disagree with someone who knowingly kills a police officer being imprisoned for several decades.

    Certainly long enough that the officer’s parents aren’t still alive to see their adult child’s killers released from prison.

    Turn shorter sentences for non-violent crimes into serious community service, and build more prisons - even temporary prisons on military land - before letting killers and sex offenders out early.

    They could even think really outside the box, and have the prisoners living in the Portakabins help build their new permanent prison.
    Yes, that's the point. There are always emotive crimes like this. As for building more prisons, yes. But where? Remember it needs to be somewhere to where prison staff can commute on their £2 bus rides. Perhaps there will be space on industrial estates now we've given up on industry.
    Also we have to recruit Prison Officers from abroad, mostly West Africa.
    I’m not usually one to argue for paying anyone in the public sector more money, but prison officers are one of those rare occasions that I will. They’re underpaid and underappreciated.

    It’s also massively preferable to hire ex-military types from Kenya or Nigeria, than to end up with the recent trend of hiring naive 25-year-old British women as officers into men’s prisons - with the inevitable headlines we see seemingly every month.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,322

    Taz said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Taz said:

    Burnham pulls back on tax free allowance facing financial reality

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c935g67wyvgo

    Classic right wing clap trap.

    Burnham has an aspiration to do something, he can't do anything til the Budget anyway.

    They need to see what fiscal leeway they have, they would have had a fair dollop had it not been for Iran and Trump, the need about 10bn to do anyting meaningful to allowances but there could well be incremental things they could add in.

    A set ladder over 3-4 years of x % to cover inflation plus 1% as an example.

    A specific increase for those of pensionable age to link to State Pension standard amount so no one purely on State Pension pasy tax on it

    My hunch would be to find a way of balancing the tax allowance for pensioners to the triple lock, so that you start to unlock the triple lock to a median point where you commit to ensuring it by inceasing personal allowances instead initially for pensioners with then an aim of increasing for all!

    Putting aside the right wing ad hominem, I vote Labour in GE’s, I don’t see how this article is ‘right wing’ either.

    why shouldn’t pensioners pay tax above the threshold ? It’s income after all. Those purely on the state oension do get other passported benefits.

    I think Dan Neidle is right. Leave this and target NI, it’s a tax on employment. We need more employment and to make work pay.

    We were canvassed by our MP and his aides at the weekend. One thing I told them is work doesn’t pay in this country.
    The rational thing is for pensioners to pay tax on their income in the same way as everyone else. But as we saw with the WFA debacle, rationality goes out the window when it comes to pensioners.

    I continue to blame Clive Dunn and St Winifred's School Choir.
    But we do pay tax on our income in exactly the same way as everybody else. I pay exactly the same amount of income tax as I would if I were still working - my state pension is pretty much my personal allowance, and my company pension is taxed at 20%.
    The only difference is that I don't pay NI. Maybe I should.
    NI is a tax for those of us not living in an alternate HYUFD universe.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,511
    carnforth said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    Indeed. See the disasterous relocation of the ONS:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34983416

    "The ONS moved its statistical functions out of London in 2007, with most of them going to Newport.

    About 90% of London-based staff chose to leave ONS rather than relocate."
    It depends how it is done.

    If you provide wage guarantees, rather than demanding salaries halve*, then the selling point if cheaper living costs (housing) is a big deal for younger people.

    *companies have tried that approach. Yes, really.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 25,096
    Sandpit said:

    What’s better than another russian WildBerries warehouse being on fire?

    Of course, it’s two russian WildBerries warehouses being on fire!

    https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/2079782896588533846

    I can't help but feel that oil refineries and missile factories were more consequential targets.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,696

    carnforth said:

    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    There’s always a Yes, Minister clip:

    “Civil servants in Whitehall right now arguing about who should be sent to staff Burnham’s No10 North in Manchester”
    https://x.com/aaron_r_rankin/status/2079566583836377100

    Refusal should count as a black mark against future promotions.
    As discussed yesterday, there's a very real chance that No10 North doesn't outlive Burnham, so why would you go?
    You could be swapping your family home in e.g. Hackney for easily a 6 figure loss (3 forced sales, 2 forced purchases and 2 lots of stamp duty) and a family home in e.g. West Ham in 3-4 years time.
    Plus it's likely your partner has a career which won't neatly synchronise with a relocation.

    Thinking you can just relocate people show's a lack of understanding about real life in the 2020s, maybe it would have worked in the 1980s.
    Indeed. See the disasterous relocation of the ONS:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34983416

    "The ONS moved its statistical functions out of London in 2007, with most of them going to Newport.

    About 90% of London-based staff chose to leave ONS rather than relocate."
    It depends how it is done.

    If you provide wage guarantees, rather than demanding salaries halve*, then the selling point if cheaper living costs (housing) is a big deal for younger people.

    *companies have tried that approach. Yes, really.
    Except in London both people are working and only 1 job is moving to the new location.

    Now if the new location is half decent it’s not a problem - a fair number of people in Treasury north now have 4 bedroom detached houses with no mortgage but there are limited places where people are willing to move to,

    Manchester is however one where your other half may also be able to find a job - it’s not look Newport where the options were Cardiff or an expensive journey towards Bristol
Sign In or Register to comment.