Reform

[cryrst]

• Personal Allowance: You can earn up to £12,570 tax-free per year for the 2026/27 tax year, which is the same standard threshold frozen since 2021. [1, 2]
• Sole income: If the State Pension is your only income, you usually do not pay any tax because the full amount stays below the Personal Allowance threshold. [1, 2]

Burnham is also pushing this policy as it actually costs very little.

😎

It will cost hmg if my sum is correct £486 (£2430 x 20%) per annum per worker maximum. There is a good chance this will be spent with all the other outgoings so the impact will probably be negligible as you say steeleye.

 

[DANGERCLOSE]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2096309021242233118

 

[cryrst]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2096309021242233118

Please remind me about the right wing storming of the labour conference 🤔

 

[silvertop]

What like the current government has allowed by imprisoning people for expressing an opinion.

By way of repetition, you vote Reform as they are supposed to represent a break from all that.

But they are not. More of the same, save for different reasons i.e. to block any criticism of them.

 

[silvertop]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Humour me, what are you saying.

 

[silvertop]

At their actual conference I think it's valid for any political party to pick which journalists they want there.

I'm not seeing that as an issue, whether it's Reform or Labour or anyone else.

When it's not a conference for their party, that's different.

Possibly

🙄

 

[georgenorman]

By way of repetition, you vote Reform as they are supposed to represent a break from all that.

But they are not. More of the same, save for different reasons i.e. to block any criticism of them.

Why do you say I vote Reform?

 

[silvertop]

Why do you say I vote Reform?

Perhaps because you appear to defend them vehemently.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Humour me, what are you saying.

Haven't I already said this many times already?

Human nature and thus history is littered with clear examples of how these interactions play out.

When you have governments that start suppressing people and forcing enough of them to accept significant change then you will get a reaction and start to build opposition that reacts to it. Isn't this obvious? The change isn't only built upon ethnic lines but it's economic as well.

Unless a government changes course then eventually a government either has to become authoritarian to perhaps even a Chinese or Stalinist extent to continue on its course without society becoming too unstable and unmanageable for safe investment.

The British government.....for whatever batsh1t crazy reasons.....has built the conditions for increasing sectarianism. And as I've been saying since before it was an accepted viewpoint, it's only going to get worse.

 

[georgenorman]

Perhaps because you appear to defend them vehemently.

Where have I defended them vehemently?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Possibly

🙄

Well, I think it's reasonable and while in principle I don't have an issue with oppositional journalists attending these places it would have to be with a behavioural expectation. If Reform or any other party consider them a risk to the smooth operation of their conference that's ok for me.....These aren't rules that operate outside of specific conferences.

If you allow politically activist journalists or activists pretending to be journalists to attend political conferences then you are going to get disruptions and discord.....Exactly for the reason that these activists wish to turn the event into an unwelcoming and scary event to attend.

Farage's speech was interrupted four times by activists who required physical removal.

I'm all for free speech but these activists aren't....They want stop the free speech of others to those who wish to hear it.

As I've also said many times, back in far more socially conservative times, the British allowed the Communist Party to operate its headquarters in London. It wasn't shut down or subject to politically motivated oppositional activism.

 

[Spindle]

And yet although there were no arrests in Portsmouth the Guardian reported that there were hundreds of Far Right there, no, they were mostly residents. They also implied that the police had to deal with rioters, no, they just turned up with riot shields.

The people are sick to death of this treatment

 

[silvertop]

Well, I think it's reasonable and while in principle I don't have an issue with oppositional journalists attending these places it would have to be with a behavioural expectation. If Reform or any other party consider them a risk to the smooth operation of their conference that's ok for me.....These aren't rules that operate outside of specific conferences.

If you allow politically activist journalists or activists pretending to be journalists to attend political conferences then you are going to get disruptions and discord.....Exactly for the reason that these activists wish to turn the event into an unwelcoming and scary event to attend.

Farage's speech was interrupted four times by activists who required physical removal.

I'm all for free speech but these activists aren't....They want stop the free speech of others to those who wish to hear it.

As I've also said many times, back in far more socially conservative times, the British allowed the Communist Party to operate its headquarters in London. It wasn't shut down or subject to politically motivated oppositional activism.

I tentatively accepted your view that parties can invite echo chamber journalists only to their conferences although that will only play to the choir. Pointless if you want your message to reach a wider market.

However, you are talking about shouty loon activists. I was referring to properly accredited journalists.

 

[silvertop]

Haven't I already said this many times already?

Human nature and thus history is littered with clear examples of how these interactions play out.

When you have governments that start suppressing people and forcing enough of them to accept significant change then you will get a reaction and start to build opposition that reacts to it. Isn't this obvious? The change isn't only built upon ethnic lines but it's economic as well.

Unless a government changes course then eventually a government either has to become authoritarian to perhaps even a Chinese or Stalinist extent to continue on its course without society becoming too unstable and unmanageable for safe investment.

The British government.....for whatever batsh1t crazy reasons.....has built the conditions for increasing sectarianism. And as I've been saying since before it was an accepted viewpoint, it's only going to get worse.

You may have done but I did ask you to humour me. 🙂

You may have gone a little tangent on what I was saying. Reform show signs already of curtailing the 4th estate, limiting judicial clarification on policy, probably suppressing organisations like the IFS who release data - favourable or otherwise - on economic performance or the Audit Office and any other nuisance who exist to provide effective checks and balances.

That concerns me.

A good strong government must deliver good quality and defend or adjust their policies where valid criticism presents. Weakling governments shoot the messengers of bad news and restrict the media to publishing only the good news.

(I assume we are winning. But are we still at war with Oceania?)

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

By way of repetition, you vote Reform as they are supposed to represent a break from all that.

But they are not. More of the same, save for different reasons i.e. to block any criticism of them.

Wow. It's great to see leftists clutching at straws.

I saw some lefty muppets complaining that the Dover protestors were wearing masks the other day.

They have become the comedy relief.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You may have done but I did ask you to humour me. 🙂

You may have gone a little tangent on what I was saying. Reform show signs already of curtailing the 4th estate, limiting judicial clarification on policy, probably suppressing organisations like the IFS who release data - favourable or otherwise - on economic performance or the Audit Office and any other nuisance who exist to provide effective checks and balances.

That concerns me.

A good strong government must deliver good quality and defend or adjust their policies where valid criticism presents. Weakling governments shoot the messengers of bad news and restrict the media to publishing only the good news.

(I assume we are winning. But are we still at war with Oceania?)

Are you on here suggesting that the 4th Estate is or has ever been a free press?

Or are you just moaning about the likelihood of different bosses?

Also, if you think that Reform are going to implement collectivist control over the press like fascism or communism I think you've gone into the realm of absurdity.

These are civnats.....If that's your suggestion you make them sound way more exciting than they are.

 

[silvertop]

Are you on here suggesting that the 4th Estate is or has ever been a free press?

Or are you just moaning about the likelihood of different bosses?

Also, if you think that Reform are going to implement collectivist control over the press like fascism or communism I think you've gone into the realm of absurdity.

These are civnats.....If that's your suggestion you make them sound way more exciting than they are.

Almost as free as anywhere else.

And I hope you are right. However, Reform have already said they are proposing to curb the power of the judiciary. That worries me.

If this is about immigration laws, when in power, change the law. If there are any loop holes, close them. Parliament has primacy of the 3 branches of government. If statute is plain, the judiciary have to implement it.

Thus, why curb the judiciary?

 

[Joseph Paxton]

Farage tonight, either has to sack Zia Yusuf for his provocative, set-up street summit with Danny Tommo or has to resign himself and admit the job is beyond him.

As per the Mail:
When asked later about how his interview was interrupted, Mr Yusuf said 'my parents did a reasonably good job of raising me to not be rude and walk away'.

😉

Reform are in deep trouble and disarray. Who is moving the pieces on the chessboard this week?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Almost as free as anywhere else.

And I hope you are right. However, Reform have already said they are proposing to curb the power of the judiciary. That worries me.

If this is about immigration laws, when in power, change the law. If there are any loop holes, close them. Parliament has primacy of the 3 branches of government. If statute is plain, the judiciary have to implement it.

Thus, why curb the judiciary?

Farage is identifying the difference between a popular mandate via an election win and the undemocratic establishment legal restrictions that are put into place to stop him carrying out the agenda he would be elected on.

You are correct in what you say concerning the core constitutional principles, however the reality is that you aren't recognising how much the current legal architecture has constrained governments on immigration and related policies in practice.

You can't just say, 'change the law' with the implication that it's as easy as that, other than the Human Rights Act 1998 you have the ECHR, Judicial review and tribunals and international treaties such as the Refugee Convention, CAT and all this takes considerable time and pushback.

Conservative governments after 2010 (and especially post-2019) passed successive restrictive measures yet still faced high volumes of challenges, delays, and policy setbacks.

That record is why both the Conservatives and Reform now talk about more structural changes: abolishing or heavily restricting immigration tribunals for certain claims and changes to judicial appointments.

Sure it comes in emotive language about preventing courts from 'striking down the will of the people' but that is born from the practical experiences of obstacles stymieing change that were never there in tradition British law....nearly all recent and/or foreign introductions. So he threatens them with reducing their future gravy train with reviewing how judges are appointed if they stand in the way.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Almost as free as anywhere else.

So not free them.

You are complaining about a change in bosses......In reality while you might get a balance shift that would be the extent of it.....No one's going to be outlawing the Guardian.

They might be able to feck with the BBC though....that might be interesting....Oh the chest beating that would create, I can almost hear it now.

But like I say, these are civnats.

They actually think they can do something democratically against a fully ingrained socially liberal establishment.......I think they can knock a few china pots over but personally I don't think they will be able to get much done.

Regardless, I wish them well and I'll have the popcorn out.