Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

I hate to nitpick, but this has been known about for literally hundreds of years.

It isn't kept a secret. The media could have found this out from publicly available information for decades.

Every piece of legislation is subject to the veto of the monarch and Prince of Wales before it is introduced to Parliament. They can request changes if it impacts their finances.

Somehow this is being presented as a scoop.

At least it is getting coverage I suppose.
 
Frosty said:
I hate to nitpick, but this has been known about for literally hundreds of years.

It isn't kept a secret. The media could have found this out from publicly available information for decades.

Every piece of legislation is subject to the veto of the monarch and Prince of Wales before it is introduced to Parliament. They can request changes if it impacts their finances.

Somehow this is being presented as a scoop.

At least it is getting coverage I suppose.
Click to expand...
No that’s a fair and good point. But…. I will be reporting you for treason!
 
Sweet Square said:
Won the leadership with only 53,806 votes. Zombie Party in full effect.
Click to expand...
Update -


GbYolBYXoAAAq1j
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Update: they are enforcing it.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...school-fees-early-risk-new-tax-raid-lcqfbhm7z

Tax experts had warned 'pre-payment' of private schools fees would not escape VAT.

Click to expand...

They set a cut off in August I think, everyone who paid up front in July before Labour had even won is fine.

There's loads of challenges already, lets see when it actually comes to fruition.
Kinsella said:
The Tories are now on their 4th female leader and 2nd ethnic minority leader. Yet Labour (the party who stresses inclusion and diversity much more) are still waiting for their first notch on either of those particular posts.
Click to expand...
Does it matter what gender or race they are if they're all ultimately cnuts?
 
Frosty said:
I hate to nitpick, but this has been known about for literally hundreds of years.

It isn't kept a secret. The media could have found this out from publicly available information for decades.

Every piece of legislation is subject to the veto of the monarch and Prince of Wales before it is introduced to Parliament. They can request changes if it impacts their finances.

Somehow this is being presented as a scoop.

At least it is getting coverage I suppose.
Click to expand...
The Guardian had that big series of stories two or three years ago as well. Putting it on TV will probably have more impact I suppose.
 
Frosty said:
I hate to nitpick, but this has been known about for literally hundreds of years.

It isn't kept a secret. The media could have found this out from publicly available information for decades.

Every piece of legislation is subject to the veto of the monarch and Prince of Wales before it is introduced to Parliament. They can request changes if it impacts their finances.

Somehow this is being presented as a scoop.

At least it is getting coverage I suppose.
Click to expand...
You are right but most people I know wouldn't know this.
 
So getting pissed up and drinking literally suitcases full of booze every Friday wasn't a problem, just that they made a rule against doing that? I'd argue whether you're in the middle of a pandemic or not getting pissed up every Friday during office hours or slightly after is a problem when you're supposed to be running the fecking country.
 
Jippy said:
I'm not ignoring this btw, was just my last full day in Langkawi today and decided against debating IHT:lol:

You make a lot of fair points and argue them logically without emotion. I am biased, disliking IHT and with my dad having been an accountant specialising in farming when I was growing up, so I met loads.
There is a real risk lots of family farms are forced under or broken up. There must be sensible compromises, eg IHT is rolled up and only valid if the farm is sold rather than bequeathed.
Jobs can be hard, stressful, yet rewarding too.

Maybe this just a topic we won't agree on.
Click to expand...

We might agree.

Thinking about the increase to employer NI - my fear is that the increase to the cost of business will result in higher prices for consumers and less income for employees - whereas I presume the intention is for business owners to shoulder the tax burden out of their profits. So, I think they'd have been better off just increasing tax on profits/capital withdrawn from the business. Same with farms or anything else - I suppose it'd be fairer to raise tax on those that make substantial profits/net income, rather than increasing the cost of business or taxing assets that haven't yet been sold.

I suppose the angle I have is more that farmers (and non-farmers who inherit property/assets) who will pay IHT are in an envious position and IMO the logical thing for them to do would be to sell and invest the money and generate stress free passive income. So I don't quite buy the narrative of despair. However, I also think it should probably be a decision that they make themselves, rather than one they are coerced into by taxation. If people want to hold on to assets rather than cash in, I don't think it's something they should be penalised for. They're penalising themselves IMO.

I think a much simpler solution would be to just tax the very highest earners and most profitable businesses a bit more and increase the tax thresholds for lower bands (decreasing tax for everyone who isn't the very highest earners). That might be a bit naive of me, but I think that's what most people would want from a Labour government, and I struggle to see how it could be successfully criticised.
 


Rachel Reeves and her husband will themselves be affected by the change, already effective, as the Telegraph reports they collect more than £6,000 a month in rent.

The outlet reports that Ms Reeves and partner Nicholas Joicey let out their four-bedroom home in south London for around £3,200 a month, having moved into Downing Street.

Mr Joicey is also believed to have let his two-bed flat in central London, with a market rental of nearly £3,000 a month, according to the Bricks&Logic property website.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...eves-74k-properties-landlords-tax-budget.html
Click to expand...

Its Daily Mail(Reporting a story from the Telegraph)but still if true

:lol:
 
I don’t understand, a politician bringing in a policy that is detriment to them personally but good for the country? Is that a bad thing?
 
That'sHernandez said:
I don’t understand, a politician bringing in a policy that is detriment to them personally but good for the country? Is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Same and don't really understand why its being pitched as a massive gotcha by the Tel.
 
Vitro said:
Are there many (any?) Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent memory who haven’t been landlords?
Click to expand...
Tbh I don’t know. I did try to find out but isn’t the east thing(At least for me anyways). I did see that Jeremy Hunt the last Chancellor of the Exchequer owns seven flats!

Overall there’s a good number of MP’s who are landlords(I’m reminded of a former Labour MP who was part of the Socialist Campaign Group and also a landlord).
 
Sweet Square said:
It’s bad for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a loaded landlord.
Click to expand...
Most chancellors in my lifetime have been loaded from their business past, family money or whatever.
Stacks of MPs are landlords, given the housing arrangements they often end up with.
 
Sweet Square said:
It’s bad for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a loaded landlord.
Click to expand...
It's understandable that a politician who has to live in 11 downing street might want to hold onto the family home and rent it out. Don't know about her husband's flat though
 
Sweet Square said:
It’s bad for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a loaded landlord.
Click to expand...

Do you want her to sell her family home for the duration of the parliament, then buy again once her term in Downing Street is done?

She rents a 2nd property and has now rented her (normal) home whilst she is in No.11.

It’s an absolute non-story.
 
Sweet Square said:
It’s bad for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a loaded landlord.
Click to expand...

I mean I personally don’t think it’s a good look but equally I can understand why she’s chosen to rent her house out. Less sympathetic over the flat, though.

At least it’s not tax evasion like Nadhim Zahawi
 
TheGame said:
Said it before and will say it again. Badenoch is another nasty, thick piece of shit and she will unravel when put under any form of scrutiny.

Click to expand...


A lot more significant than accidentally becoming leader of a dead party.
 
Sky News breaking news....saying tuition fees going up
 
the Rt Hon Laura Trott - possibly the thickest MP in the building. now Shadow Education sec. oh dear.
 
TheGame said:
Click to expand...

He is right. Although quite why an increase in funding cannot come from central government is beyond me. Fees would need to be at around 13k per home student for universities to break even (assuming no increase in state funding). An extra 1k won't be enough to solve the funding crisis, and students will be paying back more for longer.
 
TheGame said:
Click to expand...

Lewis is spot on with the maintenance loan not being high enough, which leads to either extra borrowing at high rates, or having to work so much part-time it's impossible for most to get a top degree, certainly in the likes of the sciences.

The thing he hasn't mentioned is interest rates on the government loan are too high, they should be CPI or maybe MLR, either way they are unfair at the moment.

Got to like Lewis though, he does have a way of looking at things from a people's perspective and not spinning to his politics.
 
711 said:
Lewis is spot on with the maintenance loan not being high enough, which leads to either extra borrowing at high rates, or having to work so much part-time it's impossible for most to get a top degree, certainly in the likes of the sciences.

The thing he hasn't mentioned is interest rates on the government loan are too high, they should be CPI or maybe MLR, either way they are unfair at the moment.

Got to like Lewis though, he does have a way of looking at things from a people's perspective and not spinning to his politics.
Click to expand...
The new Government has spoken about wanting to borrow to invest in infrastructure. Lowering the interest rates and increasing the amount of the loans is surely borrowing to invest in the future workforce (even if the students are the ones repaying the loans).
 
Frosty said:
He is right. Although quite why an increase in funding cannot come from central government is beyond me. Fees would need to be at around 13k per home student for universities to break even (assuming no increase in state funding). An extra 1k won't be enough to solve the funding crisis, and students will be paying back more for longer.
Click to expand...
Telegraph (I know) reports that it's an interim measure while the govt figures out what really to do with university funding.
 
nickm said:
Telegraph (I know) reports that it's an interim measure while the govt figures out what really to do with university funding.
Click to expand...
Labour have the majority and political cover to construct a sustainable system which could last for a decade. The Tories kept kicking this down the road, no doubt fuelled by the culture warriors in their ranks.
 
If a student goes to Uni, racks up the debt, but then never earns enough to repay it - who pays that off?
 
I had no idea university was so expensive.
Tibs said:
If a student goes to Uni, racks up the debt, but then never earns enough to repay it - who pays that off?
Click to expand...
Nobody, you are borrowing from the government.
Potentially for 40 years it seems!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.