Is the country ready for a Farage government?

But you were policing the thread by questioning posters on their use of emojis Doodledog though that seems to have escaped you.Why say anything at all about it, you liberally use them yourself.
The only thing that I do is report a very personal attack on me when it happens, or an anti-semitic post. If we all did that maybe the threads would become a better place.By leaving those kind of posts for others to see does nothing.If you or other posters don’t like that it’s just too bad.

Allira

Doodledog

Well there you go, you’ve just proved my point as you’re using laughing emojis now.As am I 😂😂
It’s not up to you to decide what’s inappropriate btw.
No, you have apparently missed mine! The 🤣 was used deliberately (as was pointed out in case it wasn't obvious enough) to show that I was 'rolling on the floor laughing' at the irony of you accusing others of thread policing whilst policing the thread yourself as usual.

It's not an emoji I use, ordinarily.

And if you read what I post before reacting, you would see that I was asking for clarification before deciding whether I should think their use was inappropriate. I have every right to think what I like - I was not deciding on what others should think or do, and wouldn't dream of telling others what or how to post. Is it ok with you if I think what I like, or do I have to run that by you first?

Whom are you addressing?

I only used one smiling emoji when I mentioned being a shareholder and a working person. It was a general comment, not addressed to you in particular.

It sounds suspiciously like a personal attack - why?

Oh God. No, I was not addressing you. That post was part of a conversation with Oreo, who had attacked me for 'policing' the thread when I asked about the use of the 'rofl' emoji earlier . the fact that she was policing the thread by doing so appeared to have escaped her. I can't always quote from my phone for some reason, so copied the relevant bit from her post.

WRT the earlier post - yes, the definition is just my opinion, but (a) it was given in response to a question about what the phrase 'working people' means, and (b) you quoted my definition, which includes the retired (if they have retired from working) so I didn't understand your objection. No attack, personal or otherwise.

Thank you for the explanation about QT, Maizie.

I’m 70 so have seen a lot of Budgets too! I remember when the top rate of income tax was 83% with an investment income surcharge of 15% on top.

Then came Thatcher but I would like to see something similar to what we had from 1979 on with a lower rate band to help those earning the least and progressive higher rate bands for those earning the most. I don’t think 60% at the top is unreasonable.

Reeves seems committed to leaving the tax allowance frozen until 2028 as Hunt had set. I’d introduce a lower band of say 18% that would reduce tax for people working full time on minimum wage and the next slice at 20% to cover most people earning average wage and slightly above - the working people that Labour talks about. Then 5% increments on £10,000 slices up to 60% on income over £115,570. ONS says more than a million people have income over £100,000. MPs would have a marginal rate of 45%. Ministers 60%.

Back to whether we are ready for a Farage government. I see the latest chat is over who exactly is paying for his security, said to be costing £1 million a year and whether it’s from an impermissible donor (which would be an Electoral Commission matter and possibly a criminal offence). Farage bankroller Arron Banks has been making noise again about wanting the Electoral Commission abolished.

Also why there are no entries for Farage in the MPs Register of Interests since May 2025? Declarations have to made within 28 days. He hasn’t declared any earnings from GB News since April or income from any other source. It’s known that he pays his earnings from the channel into a company to reduce his tax liability from 40% to 25% but he should still declare it. Why hasn’t he?

I did post yesterday Wed 01-Oct-25 15:25:46 about who Starmer has said he considers to be working people. Page 16.

Doodledog

*Well there you go, you’ve just proved my point as you’re using laughing emojis now.As am I 😂😂*
It’s not up to you to decide what’s inappropriate btw.
No, you have apparently missed mine! The 🤣 was used deliberately (as was pointed out in case it wasn't obvious enough) to show that I was 'rolling on the floor laughing' at the irony of you accusing others of thread policing whilst policing the thread yourself as usual.

It's not an emoji I use, ordinarily.

And if you read what I post before reacting, you would see that I was asking for clarification before deciding whether I should think their use was inappropriate. I have every right to think what I like - I was not deciding on what others should think or do, and wouldn't dream of telling others what or how to post. Is it ok with you if I think what I like, or do I have to run that by you first?

Whom are you addressing?

I only used one smiling emoji when I mentioned being a shareholder and a working person. It was a general comment, not addressed to you in particular.

It sounds suspiciously like a personal attack - why?

Doodledog

Allira

Doodledog

Allira

‘Working people’ is shorthand for ‘taxpayer’ or ‘contributor’ - those who are supporting everyone else. The people who get up every morning and go to work whilst others choose not to, to make profits for employers (who often use taxpayers’ money to top up low wages) so they can pay rent to those with more than one house, and bills to make profits for shareholders. Retired working people are included in that, as I see it.

We are not working. We are retired. We pay tax.

Same here. Not sure of your point.

People who work (or who made their living by working until they retired) are 'working people' in the sense that the term is currently being used, I think.

I thought my point was obvious.

We are not people who get up every morning and go to work.

Not for a long time.

Right, but as you are (or appear to be) arguing with my definition, why are you ignoring the fact that I explicitly said that IMO it includes this who have retired from doing so?

Right, but as you are (or appear to be) arguing with my definition, why are you ignoring the fact that I explicitly said that IMO it includes this who have retired from doing so?

You did say that, but also said that it is your opinion.

That is not what was made clear in the speech - in fact it was fairly obvious it was not what was meant in the speech. We can all have opinions but it does not make them fact and may not be the same as that of another person or of a Government spokesperson.

Well there you go, you’ve just proved my point as you’re using laughing emojis now.As am I 😂😂
It’s not up to you to decide what’s inappropriate btw.
No, you have apparently missed mine! The 🤣 was used deliberately (as was pointed out in case it wasn't obvious enough) to show that I was 'rolling on the floor laughing' at the irony of you accusing others of thread policing whilst policing the thread yourself as usual.

It's not an emoji I use, ordinarily.

And if you read what I post before reacting, you would see that I was asking for clarification before deciding whether I should think their use was inappropriate. I have every right to think what I like - I was not deciding on what others should think or do, and wouldn't dream of telling others what or how to post. Is it ok with you if I think what I like, or do I have to run that by you first?

Allira

Doodledog

Allira

‘Working people’ is shorthand for ‘taxpayer’ or ‘contributor’ - those who are supporting everyone else. The people who get up every morning and go to work whilst others choose not to, to make profits for employers (who often use taxpayers’ money to top up low wages) so they can pay rent to those with more than one house, and bills to make profits for shareholders. Retired working people are included in that, as I see it.

We are not working. We are retired. We pay tax.

Same here. Not sure of your point.

People who work (or who made their living by working until they retired) are 'working people' in the sense that the term is currently being used, I think.

I thought my point was obvious.

We are not people who get up every morning and go to work.

Not for a long time.

Right, but as you are (or appear to be) arguing with my definition, why are you ignoring the fact that I explicitly said that IMO it includes this who have retired from doing so?

eazybee

^That is where my heart lies,not waving a flag and singing Rule Britannia or fighting for my country.^

Ummmm.

Oh, come on. I'm sure yo're dying to say it.

"Why do you hate your country?"

There's a feeling of something not very nice to these replies to StripeyGran. Something very unBritish. Intolerance...

Or is insularity and a desire for conformity the British 'thing' and I've got it all wrong?

I suggest you read paragraph 2 again. They are REPORTING on the IPSOS poll not giving their view. Primrose

I fully understood, in fact I said it was CNNs view of the poll. I'm not at all sure your use of the word "report" instead of my "view" makes a blind bit of difference.

What it does mean is that we were reading someone's (an American multinational news media company's in this case) biased opinion not the poll itself. Even the poll is only a snapshot of a moment in time - not that this stops it from being viable information but it does need that consideration.

Casdon gave her opinion on Starmers speech. Allira, with her usual lack of acceptance of others right to an opinion which doesn't agree with hers, made her views clear.

The speech took place some 10 days after the poll and it's reasonable to suppose that a) people may have opinions of it regardless of the poll, and b) it may have changed views.

It was not unreasonable to bring it up, nor can you hang on to the poll findings for long, There will, I believe be an October one which will outline any changes.

That is where my heart lies,not waving a flag and singing Rule Britannia or fighting for my country.

Ummmm.

GrannyGravy13

The UK left the EU, it hadn’t been towed into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, we are still European 🤦‍♀️

I think you know exactly what I mean. I would have liked to have been part of the EU....clearer?

That is where my heart lies,not waving a flag and singing Rule Britannia or fighting for my country.

The UK left the EU, it hadn’t been towed into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, we are still European 🤦‍♀️

www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-officially-most-unpopular-pm-ever/

DaisyAnneReturns

fancythat

StripeyGran

And what about you StripeyGran

I'm not sure what you are asking?

I would have liked to have been European. I have no feelings of patriotism, never have. I will be happy if there is no need to call up young men to fight.

You would not fight for the Country. As I suspected.

I don't think they'd want a 70 something with arthritis/poor eyesight and hearing would they?

I suppose I could wield a large brown teapot and be of service that way.

fancythat

StripeyGran

And what about you StripeyGran

I'm not sure what you are asking?

I would have liked to have been European. I have no feelings of patriotism, never have. I will be happy if there is no need to call up young men to fight.

You would not fight for the Country. As I suspected.

Oh dear. Get yourself off to the naughty step, StripeyGran.

You’ve just failed fancythat’s patriotic UK citizenship test and clearly need to be re-educated…

So wanting to be ‘European’ is treasonous, is it?

It’s worse than Norman Tebbit’s ‘which cricket team would you support?’ test. 😲

DaisyAnneReturns

Primrose53

Allira

Primrose53

Casdon

Starmer’s speech has admirably served its purpose I think, which was to rally the Labour troops and rattle Reform. Of course people who don’t want him as PM and don’t like Labour didn’t like it - but that is a mark of its success as a speech. Ed Davey’s was equally powerful. I’m looking forward to hearing Kemi Badenoch next week, I really hope she can do similar.

It was nothing like you describe. Starmer is obsessed with Farage and Reform. He is running (or trundling) scared.

He is the most unpopular PM for years and he knows it.

He is the most unpopular PM for years and he knows it.

I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration, Primrose!
Or have you forgotten Ms Truss?

IPSOS Poll says he is!

edition.cnn.com/2025/09/30/uk/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-intl

That isnot the ipsos poll saying he is. It's a CNN view of an Ipsos poll.

I suggest you read paragraph 2 again. They are REPORTING on the IPSOS poll not giving their view.

Just 13% were satisfied with Starmer as PM, 79% were unsatisfied with him.

StripeyGran

*And what about you StripeyGran*

I'm not sure what you are asking?

I would have liked to have been European. I have no feelings of patriotism, never have. I will be happy if there is no need to call up young men to fight.

You would not fight for the Country. As I suspected.

You are European Stripeygran as we all are on the Continent of Europe.

On Keir Starmer I’ve always thought he was the best of a poor bunch to be leader of the opposition but worried he wasn’t really PM material, not that many of them are anyway.
A decent man in the wrong profession.

And what about you StripeyGran

I'm not sure what you are asking?

I would have liked to have been European. I have no feelings of patriotism, never have. I will be happy if there is no need to call up young men to fight.

Doodledog

Oreo

Doodledog

What are the 🤣 emojis adding? According to the description they mean 'rolling about on the floor laughing'. I can't see anything in this debate that is likely to make anyone do that, so assume that they are just there to be rude, and ridicule others. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't want to think that of anyone wrongly.

Just about everyone on this forum uses emojis so picking up another poster about it really is strange.As you know the 🤣means someone thinks it’s funny so why not use it.
This thread is about politics and not a serious subject such as abuse or tragedy. It’s being the thread police otherwise.

Thread police? That's ironic 🤣🤣

I found myself rolling on the floor laughing at that. There are numerous emojis that show smiling faces, and they all mean different things, from a smile that shows a comment is meant kindly to a 'rolling on the floor laughing' one, which is usually understood to signify extreme amusement - laughing at rather than with people (as you know?).

For the tape - I was asking why it was being used in this case, in case I was being judgemental by thinking it was inappropriate, not 'policing' anything.

Well there you go, you’ve just proved my point as you’re using laughing emojis now.As am I 😂😂
It’s not up to you to decide what’s inappropriate btw.

Primrose53

Allira

Primrose53

Casdon

Starmer’s speech has admirably served its purpose I think, which was to rally the Labour troops and rattle Reform. Of course people who don’t want him as PM and don’t like Labour didn’t like it - but that is a mark of its success as a speech. Ed Davey’s was equally powerful. I’m looking forward to hearing Kemi Badenoch next week, I really hope she can do similar.

It was nothing like you describe. Starmer is obsessed with Farage and Reform. He is running (or trundling) scared.

He is the most unpopular PM for years and he knows it.

He is the most unpopular PM for years and he knows it.

I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration, Primrose!
Or have you forgotten Ms Truss?

IPSOS Poll says he is!

edition.cnn.com/2025/09/30/uk/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-intl

That isnot the ipsos poll saying he is. It's a CNN view of an Ipsos poll.

1. Why did the BoE chose the day before th Budget to start QT? It seems deliberate.

I have no idea.

But it has been pursuing QT, quite unnecessarily for some time. The bonds could well have sat with them until maturity at no detriment to the nation's finances.

Apparently, the UK is the only country that is doing it. All the others which carried out QA are just hanging onto the bonds. The really annoying thing is that the BoE are selling them at a loss. As it was the BoE that created the money to buy them in the first place it seems really weird.

I note the figures you quote, but the Reform plan is to cut taxation for the wealthy and corporations, too. Of course the wealthy will win out in that situation. If they were more heavily taxed, that is, if their tax bill was actually progressive, making the over all percentage they paid equal to the percentage currently paid by the remaining 'percentiles' they would lose the estimated advantage.

£60 billion on income tax cuts sounds generous but it will make little difference to the poorest households. The poorest 20% of households would be just £1 a day better off,

I'm in my mid 70s. I have seen an awful lot of budget days. I have read plenty of analyses the next day telling me that the projected increase in the threshold, or projected tax cuts are going to make me, oooh, say £150 a year better off. Wow!

£365 pa sounds pretty good in comparison...

You do have to consider what the over all effect on the economy of £60 billion 'would be if' it was going to end up in the hands of the poorer people, who would most definitely spend it into the economy. Even half of that would be pretty useful.

Unlike the wealthy, who have a well documented 'marginal propensity to spend'. They'd just speculate with the extra in order for it to grow more money for themselves. They rarely 'invest' in anything productive.

I did say that the 'only' bit of the policy I thought had a 'modicum' of sense was raising the tax thresh hold for the poor. The rest is nonsense, as you demonstrate. The upper thresholds have to stay where they are. Perhaps with an extra tax rate for the super wealthy, who could pay a bit more than 45%...

Thank you, Maizie. So my follow up questions are these and I apologize in advance if they seem naive.

If:

The prevailing media narrative was that markets simply “lost confidence” in the government's fiscal numbers. But that is not the whole story. What really tipped markets into crisis was that the Bank of England's announcement the day before Kwarteng spoke that it was going to start proactive quantitative tightening, or, in other words, it was going to begin proactively selling off government bonds it already held as a result of acquisitions after the global financial crisis and during the Covid period.

The date of the Budget is not a secret. The tax cuts had been announced ahead of the day.

1. Why did the BoE chose the day before th Budget to start QT? It seems deliberate.

2. Why did Kwarteng not react to that and change tack?


The argument about Reform’s proposed tax cuts is that they would benefit poor households the least, as you already know:

IPPR data:

www.ippr.org/media-office/analysis-of-reforms-tax-plans

Increase in the tax-free allowance:

Current allowance: £12,570
Proposed allowance: £20,000
Cost for 2024-25: £41bn
Poorest 20 per cent of households: An increase of £380 in average annual household disposable income
Richest 20 per cent of households: An increase of £2400 in average annual household disposable income
Distribution of benefits: 32 per cent of the tax break goes to the richest 20 per cent of households

Increase in the higher income tax threshold:

Current threshold: £50,270
Proposed threshold: £70,000
Cost for 2024-25: £18bn
Poorest 20 per cent of households: An increase of just £17 in average annual household disposable income
Richest 20 per cent of households: An increase of £2700 in average annual disposable income
Distribution of benefits: 80 per cent of the tax break goes to the richest 20 per cent of households

£60 billion on income tax cuts sounds generous but it will make little difference to the poorest households. The poorest 20% of households would be just £1 a day better off, while the richest would be £14 day better off. It isn't going to simulate a spending spree in the poorest and the richest will probably just squirrel it away.