Forum Topic

Lawless London

For the second time in successive nights I have been walking my dog on the CHR and seen a youth, dressed in black, hood up, mask on, riding an electric bike, pointing a torch in the back of a car… clearly looking for goods to steal… brazenly going from car to car before scooting off at speed… is this where London has got to? Surely govt can provide more police resource and local authorities some sort of deterrent for these scumbags?

Emma Elizabeth ● 29d122 Comments

There will always be people at the top, bottom and middle. The portion of wealth each strata has and the disparity between the levels varies across countries and historically. Historically when the top takes too much and avoids tax and the bottom has nothing, the middle is heavily taxed, becomes disgruntled, revolution follows. Magna Carta, French revolution etc. The post war period in Britain was very unusual historically, it was a period of wealth sharing. It meant that a generation became far wealthier than their parents and grandparents, got to own property, gain qualifications for free, or at low cost,  become entitled to a generous pension, free healthcare. Not everyone, but a large portion of people, enough to reshape society and the economy. Create a consumer economy.It felt like progress and a trend that would continue, but it hasn't it has reversed.Labour has very close ties with business through lobbyists. Many MP work for lobbying firms, it's a lucrative next role. Peter Mandelson being a good or bad example. He set up Global Counsel a lobbying firm that works for the water industry. Must have been useful to Thames Water et al recently. The independent water review commissioned by Keir Starmer rules out nationalisation in its terms of reference. Lobbyists earning their money. Former Labour Minister Jim Murphy, set up and runs Arden strategies. This is what they say about Themselves; Expert Political Advisers — We craft winning narratives that resonate with decision-makers and the media. Shape your strategy & share your message with key influencers & journalists. Led by Jim Murphy.As an ex Labour Minister, Jim Murphy can and does arrange one on one meetings and events with Labour Ministers. He is, no doubt, rewarded handsomely for it. Arden has many corporate clientsLabour's polices are heavily shaped by the activities of lobbying firms.

Kathleen Healy ● 14d

There will always be people at the top and bottom, Labour are attacking the middle because we are sitting ducks thats what is outrageous. labour are incapable of understanding that the old Labour rules do not apply. unfortunately Labour have too many hard left MP’s who are more aligned to Jeremy Corbin thats the real problem. They all have to go because they do NOT represent this country and values. It’s those in the middle that make a massive difference. You are right everyone feels poorer so are opting to have friends & family round rather than meet up in a local establishment so very sad. Hospitality has no option but to increase their prices it’s logic too expensive thank you Labour for destroying hospitality. You are also right they’re all the same, nothing creative. There is not one person in this government who has built it worked in commercial world says it all! They have no clue.

Jayne Thorburn ● 15d

The other thing hitting hospitality is ordinary people feeling poorer and less confident, so cutting back on discretionary spending. It is a perfect storm. It isn't just Labour. One of the things repeated often when pollsters talk to people is  "they're all the same". Lot of truth in that. Conservatives increased the minimum wage and did business rates revaluations that led to rises in bills for SMEs. Hints all round at trying to level the playing field with online business, but no action from any party.The parties are all funded by the wealthiest. He who pays the piper etc. If a large block of people have little or nothing, the 50% sharing 5% of the Country's wealth and a small number at the top own an ever greater share of wealth and avoid tax, it places a heavy burden on the middle.That is why politics is fracturing, people don't feel any of the main parties represent them.

Kathleen Healy ● 15d

We agree all the policies Labour have brought in totally undermine SME’s particularly hospitality its SME’s that make a massive difference to growth. The employment rights bill has killed many companies wanting to recruit they are using AI instead. So well done Labour

Jayne Thorburn ● 15d

The squeeze on hospitality has been relentless. The Covid discount on Business rates phasing out. Increased Employers NI, minimum wage increases and, a big one, the shock of steep energy rises.Compounding that, the rise of Deliveroo etc. and accelerating trend towards "home entertainment".It all seems dystopian, less of people mingling and socialising with people outside their immediate friends / family, more staying at home, in a shrinking personal world.Went to a pub in Hayes recently. It was like stepping back in time. People said hello when we walked in, altghough they didn't know us, people at the next table chatted to us. Mostly older people and a few the worse for wear. One guy got up had a dance and fell over, but wasn't an issue, bar lady picked him up.Maybe I could start a business running tours to it; step back in time, experience the traditional British boozer. last chance to see, a dissappearing world.

Kathleen Healy ● 15d

The problem is with increasing minimum wage some have now lost their jobs, and believe some live in at hospitality places.  Their wages were made up with tips.  It needed increasing but at the right time, not when they are already trying to keep head above water.

Janice Evans ● 15d

I agree. It's big businesses with the power to lobby and offer rewards that are the priority.There could be a shift to tax the big online businesses but not much appetite for that. Amazon is registered in Luxembourg, so avoids corporation tax. Your average high street business can't do that. Sainsbury's not a small business is UK registered so pays corporation tax here. Not a level playing field. Amazon also generates a lot of externalities, costs of it doing business that it doesn't pay. Large amounts of cardboard that Local Authorities have to collect and impacts from having far more delivery vehicles driving around.Minimum wage increases are an attempt to keep a lid on a creaking system. A large portion of benefits payments go to working people to pay housing benefit and topping up low wages, so people can survive. So lower wages mean higher benefits bills.Low wages were also blamed as a factor in the countries low productivity, compared to say France. Cheaper in the UK to employ more people on low wages rather than invest in innovation and training. The rise in minimum wage isn't because any of the parties that have done it, and they all have, care about people on low wages. Clearly none of them do.

Kathleen Healy ● 15d

Labour have done nothing for business, they have actively damaged it increasing NI, business rates up, Minimum wage up which is killing hospitality, IHT for farmers zero economy in growth which is bad for the country. Labour think they can tax and spend the only people benefiting is welfare claimants fraud on a massive scale with no checks & balances. They take us all for fools.

Jayne Thorburn ● 15d

Maybe, although a lot of decisions made have harm many small businesses, the ones that matter to us the most, and people will use their vote to object.

Janice Evans ● 15d

All the parties help businesses. Labour has been a big supporter of the gambling industry. Takes a lot of money from it, actually both big parties do. Michael Dugher former Labour MP, headed up the gaming industry's lobbying body until recently, after stepping down as an MP. He also worked as a lobbyist for a big IT firm before entering parliament, it secured government contracts.Senior MPs in all parties have close links to business and skip across from politics to industry or industry to politics.If you attend any of the party conferences, a large hall will be set up with stalls from big industries and companies who run government contracts. They fund a lot of the hospitality and give gifts to MPs. Locally, Councillors attend MIPIM in Cannes and are wined and dined and lobbied by developers and the construction industry.When I worked in banking, there were strict rules about what you could accept from customers. Business lunches were okay, within reason, frequency and cost wise. Odd corporate hospitality at a sports event, but usually as a team. The concern was that it would cloud your judgement if you had accepted large, personal, gifts and favours from people. There are no such rules in Parliament as long as you register what you took inn a book and some MPs seem to forget to do that.

Kathleen Healy ● 15d

have always voted for a party that will help businesses.

Janice Evans ● 15d

I believe it all happens for a reason, like lesson now learned for many who never understood Labour Policies, but also Keir made one very good decision in not fully entering another war, personally I would prefer very well educated people in Government, although not well educated myself due to a lot of ill health do see the need for it in Government to deal with all the issues you mention.

Janice Evans ● 15d

Labours policy of high tax and high spend just doesn't work, NHS is crumbling, crime is out of control shoplifting and the like, cost of living is too high, unemployment rising, welfare handouts out of control & unsustainable. Well they got is due to Tory downfall we gave them a chance & they have blown it!

Jayne Thorburn ● 15d

Well Steve as far as I'm concerned they started off well in 1997 before Blair got embroiled in the 2nd Gulf war.

Andrew Jones ● 16d

“It’s fallen far short of my expectations and hopes.“How any working person can have high expectations and hopes from a Labour government is beyond belief. Good to see them tanking today. They certainly deserve it!

Steve Taylor ● 16d

Yes agree Richard.

Janice Evans ● 16d

"Labour got in on the thoughts that they couldn't be any worse than Conservatives.."The Conservative governments led by Boris, Liz and Rishi were not a great example of how to do it - don't forget that Labour's offering as PM in 2019 was Old Jeremiah, leaving the electorate a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea - but anyone who really thought Labour would be any better lacked a grasp of history.

Richard Greenhough ● 16d

"He’s weak and spineless."While I'm certainly not a fan of Never-Here-Keir, he did show some spine in not giving in to DumbAss Donald's demands to join in his ill-thought-out attack on Iran.

Richard Greenhough ● 16d

Labour got in on the thoughts that they couldn't be any worse than Conservatives, it's been a hard lesson for many and Reform could get in on the thought they cannot be any worse than Labour.  This is why we need a Government that treats everyone fairly, and many see Reform as a good choice.

Janice Evans ● 16d

Strangely enough Jayne, as someone who works and pays tax at upto the 40% band, I don’t see myself as a cash cow.That’s not to say I’m not pretty disappointed with how this government has fared so far - it’s fallen far short of my expectations and hopes.But a GE now risks us sleepwalking into the nightmare of a reform government.Keir Starmer won’t be the PM when we come to the next GE, but until we can be sure we are unlikely to have a reform government, I pray the government won’t be calling an early GE.

Andrew Jones ● 17d

True he hasn't led his party his biggest challenge is that with such a huge majority the hard left in the party are ruling Kier is soft left. So the hard left with people like Angela Rayner shout loud, none of them have any clue how to manage a country it is pretty shocking. The country is neither hard left or hard right Labour are being totally unfair to the majority of society and just see anyone who works or business owners as cash cows. Time to go. Greens are terrifying.

Jayne Thorburn ● 17d

Starmer has everything to answer for because he allows his backbenchers to run roughshod over him. He’s weak and spineless.

Steve Taylor ● 17d

Right to Buy in 1980 was a stunning opportunity to create a more equal society which is what you are advocating. The challenge being that it was not updated, the discounts were too deep and the revenue did not go back to local council to build new social housing. The inception and intent of the policy was decent. The cost of upgrading a Victorian terrace, double glazing etc would have cost a huge amount, just wasn't worth it as an accidental landlord costs versus income in some years was negative. Every government policy just eroded the hassle/tax = no gain. I thought Blair was an excellent PM he understand how the manage a country. Not like this lot who are just taxing high spending high. Whether you agree with government borrowing money or not we are paying the highest for 28 years under this government forget Liz Truss the markets reacted but at a much lower rate of interest. So you wont hear this government mentioning her name again after dining out on her. This government is cruel, patronising and purely incompetent. This isn’t attacking Starmer his far left back benchers have a lot to answer for.

Jayne Thorburn ● 17d

Britain has the oldest and leakiest properties in Europe which need updating to deal with hotter colder wetter and drier weather which is why legislation came in to try to improve it.Have a look at the information on Shelter and other housing/homelessness websites.  Many homes that Councils were forced to sell under Right to Buy they have now bought back at increased prices.  Many were just rented out by their buyers and were then not maintained as well as they would have been had they stayed in Council hands.  All because of a belief that all home owners would automatically vote for the Conservatives.  You sold your property so that you did not have to spend on upgrading it.  That is of course your prerogative but there has to be some incentive for action to be taken to improve energy efficiency which is why it was legislated for in 2018.  You seem to have a pathological hatred of the Labour Party but it hasn't been just Labour who have made all the legislation regarding housing.  So many properties have been split with and without planning permission and all the necessary safeguards and facilities such as fire separation between properties, bin space and adequate facilities and space for the numbers who are housed in them.  Dividing properties can make it more difficult to maintain the whole building and more difficult for Councils to know how safe properties are. Having to pay VAT on upgrading buildings whilst not having to pay it on newbuild has also delayed the upgrading of buildings.  When you look at the problems people have and complain about the root of so many of them are to do with... housing - or lack of it..

Philippa Bond ● 17d

Do you have statistics on your claims that many private landlords are poor? a totally agree that institutions and some councils are very poor but private landlords general want to protect their investment so are excellent at looking after their tenants. Labour take a sledgehammer to every policy treating 90% of decent landlords poorly. 37% of private landlords have sold up that only creates more housing issues. How can it be right that a tenant can NOT pay rent for 3 months before the landlord is able to take out a long drawn process it’s wrong. Private landlords have mortgages to pay this policy is plain wrong. Some of it does make sense but I got out the market with so much legislation coming 3 years ago it just wasn’t worth the hassle for little return. I was one of the 90% decent landlord and did not increase rent, sorted issues quickly to a high standard so I totally disagree with this policy. This government has no idea how to govern a country it shows in all their heavy handed policies so we have zero growth, inflation rising, costs rising, massive tax increases and no improvements given their extra 70 billion they are taking from society. Labour are dead.

Jayne Thorburn ● 18d

There have been and are lots of problems with landlords as there are a lot of necessary regulations concerning the condition, maintenance, energy efficiency and safety of their properties to rent - which many of them just ignore. As there is a shortage of truly affordable properties to rent many renters have been afraid to mention any faults in fear that they will be evicted and lose their home.  This can be devastating especially when it is difficult to find an alternative at an acceptable price where you have your family support network when you have to travel to work and have children at local schools whose continuity of education and friendships will be affected. Many landlords aren't good at carrying out repairs properly and/or in good time. The management and overseeing of correct and safe repair and decoration work is also often poor ie fire resistant doors that don't fit and close promptly and properly. There is still a problem with cladding and building faults that need attending to following Grenfell let alone all the buildings that need updating to deal with climate extremes. There are registers of landlords who have been prosecuted. Some of them can be hard to contact and find to raise problems.There are charities like Shelter and Citizens Advice who give advice on housing problems and renters' rights.It definitely isn't just privately rented accommodation where there are landlord problems but of course there can also be problematic tenants! 

Philippa Bond ● 18d

There isn't a problem with some people being very wealthy. It becomes a problem when wealth and power concentrates to the  extent that it creates great inequalities of wealth and power. Eventually it harms economic growth, particularly in an economy that relies on consumption. Rising poverty and a sense that the tax system is unfair leads to social tensions. This discussion prompted me to re read some of Capital, Thomas Pickety's 2013 book. It's interesting, the process he wrote about has accelerated and is more clearly evident. We have an elite who now own a bigger share of wealth than in 2013, a larger and increasingly poorer group at the bottom, 50% of people hold just 5% of the countries wealth, and a middle that feels over taxed and dissatisfied. Graduates are very heavily taxed. They pay an additional 9% tax on earnings over 28k. Under the latest plan, graduates will pay it back for up to 30 years. Many will be pay it for the whole term. Interest is added and compounds from the day the first loan is drawn. There is an older cohort, many of whom currently don't feel the squeeze felt by younger people. They vote and they support the status quo.What will happen over time though? as natural processes create an older generation with little wealth, or a middle aged generation who realise they will have little wealth to sustain them in old age. It's an interesting question because it is the educated middle that are the drivers of change, not the poorest.The shift away from post war wealth sharing has been cross party. I read an article once in praise of Tony Blair. It said his task was to broaden and deepen Margaret Thatcher's reforms and he did. Well done they said. It's true, he introduced student loans, kept the ban on Councils building housing. It wasn't lifted till 2018, after years of governments watching a housing crisis unfold. When you see where Blair is now, it's clear that his concern was never ordinary working folk.If you look at who funds the various parties, you can see that they are all answerable to the same lobby. Starmer's leadership bid was funded by wealthy individuals. He refused to say who his backers where until after he was elected.Liz Truss is opening an exclusive, invitation only, club in Mayfair. Joining fee half a million. A club for the pro growth, global elite. Odd, history shows that policies that distribute wealth create the greatest economic growth. See the the massive reduction of the post war debt under redistributive policies. I can't imagine that's what they have in mind though, maybe they mean pro growth of their own private wealth.We live, as they say, in interesting times.

Kathleen Healy ● 18d

Totally agree Steve & Janice plus 90% plus of landlords are decent people who look after tenants I read a statistic that 37% of private rental properties are no longer. So anything ridiculous policy the rental rights act just like the employment rights act Angela Rayner along with her fans are sinking this country.

Jayne Thorburn ● 18d

There is a list of rich people who have left the UK on Yahoo Finance UK

Janice Evans ● 18d

Also I never see a problem with landlords, they were providing much needed homes for those who have no chance of Council Housing,

Janice Evans ● 18d

Wealthy people are the pillars of society. The wealthy create businesses, drive innovation, and provide employment, which generates economic activity and improves living standards.Wealthy individuals can invest significant capital into new ideas, research, and infrastructure that might not otherwise be funded.Many wealthy individuals contribute large sums to charitable causes, supporting education, health, and social initiatives.

Steve Taylor ● 18d

Too right Janice…..so government borrowing has hit a 28 year high under Reeves and this Labour government, don’t think they will be mentioning liz Truss anymore. Simple shocking statistic, so we are now lawless, defenceless, high unemployment, public services crumbling quite a record for Labour who promised change 😂😭 don’t think this is described as a fair society for anyone!

Jayne Thorburn ● 18d

Fortunately times have changed, in the UK you are talking about a handful of people who are billionaires. Many if not all give away billions to charities, foundations and scholarships. We should celebrate people who have earned their own wealth very few inherit the kind of wealth you are talking about. The rest of us have to graft for a living some earn more than others. Some invest wisely some spend people are not equal in a democracy. Even in a communist society the corruption is huge and inequality even bigger than in a democracy. We don’t live in a perfect world but I celebrate success, higher earners pay huge tax to support the rest of society. Let’s not beat them up their contribution to society is huge.

Jayne Thorburn ● 19d

I have never seen wealthy successful business people as a problem, they are self sufficient, they don't take from anyone, and they provide work for others, what more could we want, I wish there was more of them.

Janice Evans ● 19d

Andrew thank you for your lengthy and considered response. Just one point your reference points are for older people who have worked for decades and chosen to invest in their future home, etc. Very few people in their youth have wealth being are it takes most people decades to build it up having paid their fair share of taxes along the way. When I started my career life I had nothing either so it happens to all generations. Totally agree living in London it is hard to get on the property ladder but given the luxury of WFH many are now choosing to move out of London hence flat sales are struggling to sell. It isn’t just income tax don’t forget NI also the true top rate of tax is actually 60% plus 2% NI over 50K, it’s not 45%. It’s a lot of money and I don’t begrudge higher earners I think they pay more than their fair share as a % of income. Also remember not everyone is fortunate to have a decent pension so they build wealth to support them in the later years that’s fair. Your point is also well made some older people may have asset wealth but not cash in the bank so let’s not hit them even harder.

Jayne Thorburn ● 19d

Wealth can be income or assets. Assets generate income. Wealth accumulates. In Thomas Pickety's book Capital in the 21st century, he analysed economic data to show how when the rate of return on capital exceeds economic growth, wealth concentrates and creates social instability, as economic activity slumps. He showed this happened through history, the post war period being an exception.The wealthiest don't have jobs in the way that people whose income is derived solely from working do, they own assets. The people at the top of the asset pile, mostly inherited their wealth. We are currently in an unusual phase where more than half the worlds top wealth owners created it themselves, mostly the tech billionaires. That will be a one generation only thing. Once they pass it on, it will become part of the great pile of inherited wealth. And it will be vast, predictions are that we will have the first trillionaires in the next few years. Elon Musk tipped as the likely first.The wealthiest are able to employ tax avoidance, non dom status, etc. and to take out of the tax pot. SIPPS where you can put 60k each year into your pension pot and, not only pay no tax on it, but get a top of 7,200 from government. Or environmental land management subsidies for large land owners.Prior to the French revolution, the country slipped into an ongoing depression, poverty and hunger, everyone getting poorer and poorer. The causes were the cost of fighting the war in America, bad harvests and an aristocracy that spent lavishly and wouldn't pay tax itself.Initially Marie Antoinette and Austria were scapegoated. She was spending all the money and she was Austrian, the enemy. All kinds of stories were circulated about her; Madame Deficit, foreign beast, treacherous, immoral, licentious.The middle class petitioned about their grievances. They were paying too much tax and the aristocrats were not paying their share and spending lavishly. They demanded that the aristocrats pay more taxes and tried to abolish exemptions that enables the aristocrats to avoid paying tax. Their grievances were ignored and attempts to bring about change, failed. The rest as they say is history.

Kathleen Healy ● 19d

Long reply follows, apologies.Jayne, you did ask me that, but you also asked me (immediately before) "so what do you mean by wealth?"Now, I pointed out that I never used the word "wealth" so you were actually asking me to say what I meant about something I didn't in fact mention. Hopefully you'll acknowledge that. Hence my initial reply to you focussed on income rather than wealth.For what it's worth, I consider wealth to include things like assets (including property, collectables, jewellery), shares, savings and pension pots. There are other things that could be added to this list. There isn’t to my mind a direct correlation between wealth and income though the two tend to be connected.Having a significant income can contribute to one being able to accumulate wealth, but obviously lifestyle and how you choose to spend the money that ends up in your bank account can mean you aren't actually getting wealthier, even on a 100k salary.    Someone who is wealthy may have a lot of wealth, not very much wealth, or a moderate amount of wealth. I don't believe there are any strict boundaries as to when you transition from one category of wealth to another one.I’m not fussed about motivated, wealth creators earning a lot of money. Like you said, they pay a lot of tax. Personally I wouldn’t call the amount they are taxed disproportionate, as that word suggests a degree of unfairness. They pay a higher proportion of tax on what they get paid ( if we are talking about income tax) and that’s entirely ok as far as I’m concerned. I’m fortunate enough to be paying some of my tax at the higher 40% rate, and if I earned more and went into a higher rate, I wouldn’t feel hard done by.It sounds like you consider 45% tax to be huge, and I doubt anything I say will change your mind about that, and similarly I don’t consider 45% tax to be a huge amount, and I doubt anything you say will change my mind. Finally (!) In answer to your “Andrew, I asked how much do you think you consider someone to be wealthy?”I honestly can’t really answer that question! I earn what I consider to be a very good wage, but I don’t consider myself to be wealthy, but I do consider myself to be fortunate, and that I had a much easier time getting to where I am than people who are starting out now will have.I live somewhere that I have a mortgage on, but it’s somewhere that I wouldn’t be able to afford to buy if I wanted to do so now. If your main asset is the property you live in, it makes you wealthy on paper.I've got what I consider a reasonable state pension to look forward to, and I don't imagine that the date I will start receiving it is going to change by too much between now and when I start receiving it - something that people in their 20s, 30s and 40s aren't able to say.

Andrew Jones ● 19d

Between 1950 and 1970, the UK's standard rate of income tax varied between 38,75% and 45%.

Christopher Shea ● 19d

https://theconversation.com/millionaires-may-not-be-fleeing-the-uk-in-droves-but-there-are-reasons-these-stories-persist-259591

Philippa Bond ● 19d

I know it feels that way Jayne, income tax is a case in point, but just off the top of my head, purchase tax went up and down during its existence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_Tax) and more flippantly no one pays window tax any more.

Andrew Jones ● 19d

I cannot see why they would want to stay if they don't have to, if they are not sure of future.

Janice Evans ● 19d

What leads to you believing that many have left Janice?Why would such people stay? There are plenty of reasons why people choose to stay in the UK.People have jobs here, people have family here, their children are in schools here, people like the UK, moving is a massive upheaval. If you are a UK citizen then some of the places you might have wanted to emigrate to are no longer are option due to us leaving the EU. Some of the other places that people have emigrated to e.g. Dubai don't feel as secure as they used to so maybe aren't quite as desirable with the benefit of hindsight. A lot of people like living in the UK.And yes, there are downsides, but you asked me why would people stay so presumably in spite of the downsides.

Andrew Jones ● 19d

Re: Google (not ONS report) in past year 16,500 millionaires left.

Janice Evans ● 19d

Richard once any government brings in a new band loan or tax e.g. mansion tax it is only going to go one way UP nothing ever seems to come down!

Jayne Thorburn ● 19d

HP cost a lot more so generally would be used for necessary items.  Now there is so much cheap cr@p on the market ie cheap to buy but only used for/lasts 5 min and so costs the planet more.  I remember that women weren't allowed to sign HP Agreements!  Perhaps there'd be less of a mountain of waste clothing discarded in the Atacama Desert if they still couldn't?  Charity shops are always short on men's clothing!A desert full of dumped clothing.  I wonder how much precious water was used to make all of that?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62kg63k8v6ohttps://www.wired.com/story/fashion-disposal-environment/We should be thinking more carefully when we choose and buy something new.  You could even try buying something second-hand!

Philippa Bond ● 19d

I do believe many have left, why would they stay.

Janice Evans ● 19d

Is there any sort of ONS report or data that you can point me to that proves this to be the case Janice?I've seen plenty of reports of this, but they all seem to be generated by companies that provide wealth management and advice for multi-millionaires, so I can't say that I can rely on them to be unbiased in their outlook.Here's one "report" that hit the headlines last year.https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024/londons-wealth-exodus(Interestingly one of the suggestions in the "report" to improve the UK's desirability to enhance the appeal to the wealthy is to "Move towards a Dubai-style healthcare system, which is largely privatized" - which of course is something that we should all embrace with open arms isn't it?)Here's a rebuttal of similar "reports".https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-claim-backtracked-but-media-re-run-story-anyway/Maybe it's genuinely true, but maybe the report of the Exodus of Wealth from London is actually a bit of scaremongering to try and persuade the government to lessen the amount of wealth redistibution they are looking to do, to save these companies' clients who have no intention of leaving the UK a bit more money.

Andrew Jones ● 19d

Andrew, I asked how much do you think you consider someone to be wealthy?100K salary is a good income approx tax paid is 34K on a 30K salary tax paid approx 4,800 a massive difference. Obviously tax & NI is approx as I don’t know someone’s tax code. Neither in my opinion could be considered wealthy. So higher earners are paying a disproportionate amount from their salary compared to lower earners. Jobs are not equal so it’s up to an individual as to how motivated, driven and successful they want to be. We are not all equal. I for one do NOT begrudge anyone who aims for higher pay they pay huge taxes already. Forget all the other taxes they pay!

Jayne Thorburn ● 19d

"Too many live on credit - instead of it being used for an occasional purchase - that is something we rarely did before being bombarded by credit card companies in the 1970s."Back in the day many items were bought using hire purchase schemes.

Richard Greenhough ● 19d

Everyone has different outlay, so that should be offset against the income to see if it's a good wage or not.

Janice Evans ● 19d

I didn't mention wealth did I? I linked to a report that mentioned income inequality.Here's something about wealthhttps://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2020tomarch2022#:~:text=1.,!Someone can be very wealthy e.g. if you have a lot of property, or a large built up pension pot, without necessarily having a high income (in comparison with the median UK income). I would consider someone on £100k per year as having a very good income. I wouldn't consider £30k per year as a good income, but I'm sure someone on the minimum wage of £12.61 per hour might consider it a good income.Supposedly plenty of businesses bleat about paying the minimum wage and how it will be the ruin of them. Mind you consevatives have never been fans of having a minimum wage and paying those at the bottom end of the income any more than they have to.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0otakScgkAWhat do you think a good wage is Jane?

Andrew Jones ● 19d

Andrew, the wealthy are leaving the UK, the first thing you do is encourage them to stay as they provide employment which gives an income at least.

Janice Evans ● 19d

A sick and aging workforce with no social care doesn't help either.  There are lots of people stuck in hospitals who really ought to be out... but they can't get Car Plans or carers.  I notice one trust has over a year's wait for a first cardiology appointment.We have skills shortages made worse by the fact that many skilled people in the workforce took retirement around or after Covid while at the same time there are young people whose education has been disrupted who need mentoring by those more skilled and confident to help them make decisions  on which direction to take with their careers.Too many live on credit - instead of it being used for an occasional purchase - that is something we rarely did before being bombarded by credit card companies in the 1970s.

Philippa Bond ● 19d

"The move to student loans put the cost on the individual." 'In 1997, a report by Sir Ron Dearing recommended that students should contribute to the costs of university education. The Labour government under Tony Blair passed the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 which introduced tuition fees of £1,000 per academic year to start in the 1998/9 academic year. In addition, maintenance grants were replaced with repayable student loans for all but the poorest students.'As with so many things, we all suffer from an ill-thought-out policy decision by a Labour government.

Richard Greenhough ● 19d

Well at least we in part…..taxes are huge so what do you mean by wealth, how much money do you think someone needs to be considered wealthy? Taxing our way out of the mess is clearly not the answer.

Jayne Thorburn ● 19d

"Too many people expect the state to pay for them they didn’t back post war."Now there's is a sweeping generalisation Jane.While I won't dispute there are people who expect the state to pay for them, what proportion of the UK expect the state to pay for them? It's probably still too high, but putting them to one side, what about everyone else? What about those who don't expect the state to pay but still find themselves among the less well off?https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7484/Income inequality is higher now than it was in the 60s and 70s. My take is that plenty of people with money want to ensure it stays that way, because the only way the people with less get some more is if that comes from the people with more.

Andrew Jones ● 19d

You paint a rosy picture but there was hardship, wages were tiny a professional would earn £2K per year many earned a lot less. Few people went into higher education the challenge is an increase population of approx 20M since 1950 and growing, during the war thousands of homes were bombed hence the need to build social housing. People didn't travel overseas, holiday was in the UK if you were lucky. There was no tech people washed by hand, most people did not have a subsided mortgage/loans or final salary pension. You may have been one of the lucky ones most people worked hard, saved to buy NOT taking out loans. The world has changed and older generations always think it is harder for the next generation. I remember my mother saying this to her children. I totally agree that over various governments policies have led to huge challenges. Encouraging everyone to go to uni on student loans that in many cases are meaningless it used to be a privilege now its expected. The tide is turning many younger people prefer to go to work and not be saddled with loans. Population growth has & is leading to many more challenges, the welfare bill excluding pensions is just not sustainable. Too many people expect the state to pay for them they didn’t back post war.

Jayne Thorburn ● 19d

The big change, since the post war political consensus, is the move away from policies to redistribute wealth and an assumption that wealth, including corporate wealth, should be shared.It has led to many unfortunate outcomes. Student debt is now 292 billion and rising. Companies used to pay for their employees training up to degree level, I was a beneficiary of that.  The move to student loans put the cost on the individual. That has been the direction of travel. the promise being that somehow it would create a stronger economy and make everyone wealthier as individuals. It hasn't.When would anyone choose to be young, the era of free higher education, cheap college courses, cheap property, lower travel and utility costs, great employee perks; final salary pensions, day release to study, subsidised mortgages and loans, cheap to access sports clubs, or now?

Kathleen Healy ● 19d

And Sunday's were for time with family.

Janice Evans ● 19d

Times have changed since the war, very few people went to university it tended to be those who wanted to follow a profession, medicines, accountants, law etc. Now a huge % go to university, many then take a gap year to travel so they don't start working until their early/mid 20’s. Yes they have students loans but i bet thats another crisis looming as so many don't pay the fund back. People expect so much more now than our parents era. There were many less  products/services available, people cooked, baked. It is not as simple as comparing post war era to today. There was much more civic pride, smaller population the list goes on.

Jayne Thorburn ● 19d

It was a difficult time for people after the war, families living in rented rooms with children and members of family left disabled by the war, they see new flats being built and the Country being rebuilt, my parents actually did very well as did their relatives, we were not better off than our parents, not sure if that was unusual at that time.

Janice Evans ● 20d

Opportunity is linked to equality. The more equal society that was created after the war, with policies aimed at redistributing wealth, created opportunities for the generation born during and shortly after the war. I am a beneficiary of that. The building of millions of council homes after the war meant that in 1986, property was still plentiful and relatively cheap in London and I was able to buy a flat, aged 23. The belief that wealth should be shared went beyond government. Barclays gave me a subsidised mortgage, which also helped. My father in law, who worked for Barclays earlier than me, got a 1% fixed mortgage. Great opportunities.Free University tuition and grants for living costs. Cheap college fees if you studied at college, as I did. Loads of evening classes advertised in Floodlight every September. These were opportunities that don't exist now.Warren Buffet, at one time the world's richest man, lobbies for the rich in America to pay a fairer share of tax. He says the fortunes the rich have made have been enabled by creating an environment; infrastructure, education etc. in which there are opportunities. That was paid for by previous generations of tax payers.  He is a friend of Bill Gates and gave his foundation a billion dollars in one year. He argues, and he says that Bill Gates agrees with him, that if Bill had been born in sub Saharan Africa, he could not have become a tech billionaire. He'd have been lucky to live beyond childhood.I don't think us boomers should don sack cloth and ashes, but I think we should acknowledge our good fortune and aspire for younger people to have similar opportunities, or at least to move in that direction and not see succesive generations poorer and poorer.As an added benefit, redistribution created a bouyant economy that enabled the country to repay a colossal post war national debt.

Kathleen Healy ● 20d

Absolutely.

Janice Evans ● 20d

Surely improving equality is down to each  individual, which is why education is important, increasing welfare NOT pensions is not equality. society should support those in genuine need but not those who are just lazy that doesn't generate a fairer society. It’s about personal responsibility & respect for society.

Jayne Thorburn ● 20d

It's a relative not absolute thing. If the relative becomes extremely unequal, as it was in Victorian England or is in South Africa and the Countries that now have extreme wealth and extreme poverty, it produces many negative consequences for everyone, even the wealthy.The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better is a book published in 2009. It analysed a number of social ills; physical ill health, mental ill health, crime etc. and found a strong corelation between them and inequality. Countries with lower levels of inequality had populations with lower levels physical and mental ill health, lower crime etc. The level of equality in a country tends not to be static, it is usually moving in one direction or the other. After the war the direction in the UK was, for many years, towards greater equality. This was a boon for the post war generation, many of whom became wealthier than their parents and grand parents.From the late 70's on, the direction has been consistently towards greater inequality and is still heading in that direction. The great, global banking fraud of 2008, followed by austerity, accelerated it, as did Covid. Unless there is change in direction, inequality will continue to grow, with a few people owing more and a large number having less.The level of inequality is a political choice. The greater levels of equality after the war were due to policies that redistributed wealth down, making the post war generation a generally wealthier one. The policies also produced high economic growth that quickly reduced post war national debt.The change in political direction from the late 70s has redistributed wealth upwards, over time creating greater inequality.

Kathleen Healy ● 20d

Without making everyone poorer that is.

Janice Evans ● 20d

Some friends we have favour South Africa, including my partner, I have never been as don't like the hot weather, or travelling at all, most I think like the idea of equality, but it is either impossible as never seems to work,  or no one has found the right way to achieve it.

Janice Evans ● 20d

You're right Janice, they have. There's a recognised measurement of how income is distributed in a country. The Gini coefficient.Countries with the greatest inequality have a higher score. South Africa has the highest score Slovakia the lowest. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-countryA search on each country as to whether they are a good place to live highlights the effect inequality has on quality of life for the majority of people;Slovakia is a good place to live for those seeking a safe, affordable, and centrally located European country with stunning natural scenery and a lower cost of living compared to Western Europe. While it offers high safety, good public transport, and a stable EU economy, expats may face challenges with a difficult language, bureaucracy, and lower average salaries.South Africa offers a high-quality, affordable lifestyle with a wonderful climate, beautiful landscapes, and diverse culture, making it an excellent choice for those with a high income. However, it presents significant challenges, including high crime rates, severe inequality, and infrastructure issues (load shedding), which often require living in secure, wealthier areas

Kathleen Healy ● 20d

Every Country has a wealth gap.

Janice Evans ● 20d

A large part of household benefits, over 23 billion, is housing benefit payments. Some of that will be paid to pensioners and that cost will increase as more people retire not having ben able to buy property. Hard to reduce the bill without evicting people. The money isn't going to claimants it's going to private landlords.This will include housing benefit paid on ex Council houses now privately owned.There are also yo yo properties, these are former council properties bought back by by Local Authorities at far greater cost than they were sold for.The increase in the wealth gap, the difference between what a small proportion of people own and what is left for everyone else, is not disputed. You can Google it, "what has happened to the wealth gap since 2010."As capital accumulates in fewer hands, everyone else, in effect, pays rent to those who own the capital. Housing benefits paid from taxation is an example of that. With fewer people able to buy property, the proportion of property owned by a few people will increase and those people will collect rent from everyone else.Public assets, Council houses were sold into private ownership now public funds are used to rent them back to house people in need of social housing. With rents so high that is a lot of people incl. working people and a big bill.We have arrived where we are through political choice, not by accident.

Kathleen Healy ● 20d

“The Tory analysis suggests that the number of working-age households receiving more than £30,000 a year in benefits has climbed by more than a third to 800,000 since the Department for Work and Pensions started using administrative data on incomes people actually receive instead of relying on asking them in surveys.Of those, some 667,278 households took more than the average salary of £32,200 a year in 2023-24 – a record high and up 30 per cent on the previous year. The number dropped to 625,618 in 2024-25, but was still double the 392,000 in 2019-20.The 600,000-plus families accounted for one in 30 of all households in Britain. Of those, 267,000 received more than £40,000 a year, 91,000 were paid more than £50,000 and 16,289 received more than £60,000 a year in 2024-25 – an 8.5 per cent increase on the previous year.The benefit cap, introduced in 2013 by George Osborne, the then Tory chancellor, was designed to limit the maximum amount of benefits that a working-age household can receive, to encourage people into work.But if the household includes one adult in receipt of disability benefit, even if there are other adults in the family who are fully able to work, they all avoid the benefit limit.The Tories are proposing to close this loophole, which allows uncapped benefits for a whole household if just one adult is eligible for the Personal Independence Payment (Pip).They would require all adults who were able to work to be employed for at least 16 hours a week and face a cap if they were not.”

Steve Taylor ● 20d

This 'Conservative analysis' refers to households and not individuals, so comparing their total benefit with individual work wages makes no sense. Total benefits can be for several people who might have multiple difficulties that legitimately makes work impossible'.  Also, 600,000 is a tiny fraction of the total UK populations of nearly 30 million households, and this report provides no breakdown of how these unusually high levels of benefit are arrived at.As mentioned elsewhere, pension payments should not be regarded as a 'welfare' payment.And in response to elsewhere, austerity was a cheap Tory response to their fallacious 'household budget/spend within your means' philosophy and an excuse to not provide decent facilities and services. Another snag is that, while austerity might reduce public debt, it tends to increase the level of private debts taken on by companies and households.

Peter Evans ● 21d

Benefits MUST be cut. No question about it. “Welfare pays more than work for 600,000 householdsRise revealed in Conservative analysis will provoke calls for overhaul of £155bn benefits budget. More than 600,000 households received more in benefits than the average worker’s salary, a first of its kind analysis has revealed.The figures show that 625,618 households were handed over £32,200 in welfare payouts last year – the average annual salary of a British worker after tax – despite the introduction of a benefits cap.The analysis, by the Conservatives, also revealed that 16,000 of those households were in receipt of more than £60,000 in welfare payments – almost twice the average annual take-home pay.The figures will provoke calls for an overhaul of the £155bn benefits budgetand for reform of the welfare cap to ensure that “work always pays”.Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure to cut welfare spending in order to bolster Britain’s defence budget, with Labour preparing to unveil its defence investment plan “within weeks”.

Steve Taylor ● 21d

'Very true, Philippa. salient point...huge transfer of wealth..richest people...country impoverished...favour of Brexit...supposed objective of austerity...exacerbated by the contraction...it was still nearly 96%'Just add 'Zionists and Freemasons' and you might just get an Order of the Michael Brown Nose

Davy Jones ● 21d

Very true, Philippa. Kathleen also made the very salient point that austerity didn't just fail to reduce the public debt as a percentage of GDP, but it also saw a huge transfer of wealth to the richest people in society, whilst the country as a whole was impoverished. The general dissatisfaction that this produced led to the vote in favour of Brexit, which further damaged the economy.ONS Data show that Public Sector Net Debt (PSD) declined from 37.2% of GDP in 1997, the first year of the Blair administration, to 28.7% in 2001. It then rose slightly to 36.1% in 2007, before increasing sharply to 47.6% in 2008, 60.6% in 2009 and 70.1% in 2010, as a result of the banking crisis. So much for the supposed objective of austerity: PSD as a percentage of GDP rose in every one of the first seven years of the Cameron government. By 2020 PSD had reached 97.6% of GDP, although of course the rise was exacerbated by the contraction of the economy caused by the COVID pandemic. And even in 2024 it was still nearly 96% of GDP. All that suffering, for what benefit? It's particularly regrettable that Starmer and Rachel Reeves clearly have no plan for getting out of this bind.

Robert Fish ● 21d

Increased the debt much more than during the 13 years of the previous Labour Govt.

Philippa Bond ● 21d

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/welfare-spending-pensioner-benefits/"The state pension is the largest single item of welfare spending, forecast to make up 42 per cent of the total in 2023-24. The system for pensioners who retired before April 2016 comprises the basic state pension (paying up to £156.20 a week in 2023-24) and the state second pension which is mostly related to prior earnings. Since April 2016, these have been replaced by a ‘single-tier’ (flat-rate) state pension for newly retired pensioners (paying £203.85 per week in 2023-24)."I have seen higher more recent percentage figures online.Apart from the State Pension there are also the other Pensioner related benefits which you can see if you copy and paste the above link.There are a lot of youngsters who have had badly interrupted schooling as a result of the Covid pandemic - an expected-sometime-pandemic which we were badly prepared for despite warnings and risk assessments.  Unnecessary austerity continued for far too long and made it harder to recover.The gap between the richest and the poorest increased.

Philippa Bond ● 21d

No money in the pot for more police. One reason is that the welfare bill is so high.

Juliet Hogg ● 21d

Austerity policies, introduced after the great global banking fraud, were justified by a study, Growth in a Time of Debt, by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. It said that debt above 90% of GDP significantly slows economic growth. Osborne, the EU and other countries cited it in justifying austerity. It contradicted earlier Keynesian theory that government intervention was necessary when growth stalls to stabilise the economy and stimulate demand and growth.The study by Rhenihardt and Rogoff was not peer reviewed and the data it was based on not made available. Other Economists later obtained the data and found spreadsheet errors, which undermine the theory and which are now acknowledged by R and R. Since austerity, debt has grown from around 74% of GDP, low in historic terms, to 93%. It is now generally acknowledged that growth is the way to bring it down.How was such extreme policy adopted, based on a non peer reviewed paper with a spreadsheet error.There were alternate economic views at the time. They said the best way out of the debt, caused by bailing out the banks, which were at risk due to colossal fraud, was through growth, underpinned by gov't spending. These alternate voices were given less prominence.A recent study into BBC bias found that it was not politically biased, but is was criticised for economic bias. Reporting the Rhenhardt Roggoff view, used by Osborne to justify austerity, whilst not putting forward  alternative views, was one of the examples. The whole mainstream media did it. It made it seems as though austerity was the best and only option. No one reported that the paper was non peer reviewed and the data it was based on wasn't available. One effect of the banking fraud, austerity and QE; or printing money which was given to banks,  has been to increase asset values and  accelerate an already growing wealth gap. The wealth of the top 10% has increased by 280% since 2008.The poorest 50% of people in the UK now own 5% of the wealth. In real terms what this looks like is food banks, homelessness, crime, insecurity, fear and support for populist politics.

Kathleen Healy ● 21d

If you focus on one particular aspect you will get all the bad news.  We do have some shootings.  Luckily not that many because we don't allow most people to have guns unlike in the US.Some people seem particularly peeved that they haven't managed to have as many holidays or haven't made as much money as they intended recently or would have done under a Tory Govt!The kids causing trouble seem to have arranged to meet up and cause havoc by using some mobile phone app.  The sooner that there are some restrictions on the ages that can use those the better!

Philippa Bond ● 21d

Now we have a DRIVE BY SHOOTING in Brixton.

Nicholas Beard ● 21d

Gosh, events happen and Covid was real and did a lot of damage in so many ways none of which are unique to the UK. Plus the war in ukraine. The reality is is simply any government has to firstly look after the economy regardless of their personal desires. The employment bill, renters rights bill has & will do serious damage. But when we have a left government that just wants to spend and give away taxpayer money for what?????? No one wins…everyone is poorer the local elections with speak loud Labour needs to GO. They are destroying the very fabric of society welfare state is a desperate state.

Jayne Thorburn ● 22d

Labour is incapable of change. Starmer tried a couple of very good things but his backbenchers wouldn’t have any of it so he u-turned. Burnham will be no better because backbenchers won’t let him. We have yet to see the damage done by the Renters Bill. The Labour front bench had lost the plot. All they continually bleat on about is the disasterous cancelling of the two child benefit cap and a few more free school meals.

Steve Taylor ● 22d

Crime, poor education, ballooning welfare, crumbling public services and increasing unemployment are of course a serious problem. But to say that all these have been caused by the present government is either unbelievably stupid or breathtakingly dishonest. Only the recent increase in unemployment can be laid at the government's door, although  unemployment was already rising in the last two years of the Conservative administration. The rest are the inevitable consequence of all those years of the previous government's austerity programme under the pretext of debt reduction. Economic growth was so restricted by austerity that national debt rose considerably as a proportion of GDP.  This short-sighted policy, in deference to complaints from the right-wing media and people like you about the evils of supposedly unfair taxation, created most of the problems with which the current government is now saddled, and about which, sadly, it has done very little. Change! What change? Andy Burnham, anyone?

Robert Fish ● 22d

We are supposed to live in a democracy, we need wealth creators they create employment, training to improve skills and pay huge taxes, pensions, innovation etc i don’t understand why they are being attacked by labour. This government is taking away aspiration which is destructive. Labour have always been totally unable to manage the economy so here we go again with this lot.

Jayne Thorburn ● 22d

Trying to level out wealth just makes everyone poor, it has never worked tomy knowledge, so don't understand why anyone still thinks it can.

Janice Evans ● 22d

Re: smartphones, many are on contracts and the person don't own the phone until contract fully paid, also you have to look at your phone for just about everything these days so no wonder a lot are taken, it can be organised crime, also goods taken from stores a lot of it is sold a car boot sales.

Janice Evans ● 22d

Yes otherwise everyone suffers.

Janice Evans ● 22d

A country needs growth in the private sector to pay taxes to fund the public sector, pretty basic economics! The other option is to borrow and pay billons in interest, simple. When the size of the state grows bigger than the private sector the country is in a real mess. Which is where we are right now……add crime, poor education, ballooning welfare, crumbling public services, increasing unemployment all achieved by this government then we are in big trouble.

Jayne Thorburn ● 22d

My idea would be operational evening curfews for certain age groups.

Janice Evans ● 22d

Thank you for your post Emma. Very informative. As they say seeing is believing! I cannot personally see how any government or mayor is going to sort the present situation out.

Nicholas Beard ● 22d

We do need growth and most people believe that and why so many are so worried about things, if they see growth it takes off the pressure.

Janice Evans ● 22d

You are absolutely nuts to think that growth is the be all and end all!!!Some people may have pals or children to help them with using their mobile phone but there are so many different ones with different functions that that isn't always the case.  You make sweeping statements!!!

Philippa Bond ● 23d

Steve 👏👏👏👏 why do people make sweeping judgments, older people are much more tech savvy than some people give them credit for Steve is right they are called ‘smart’ phones for a reason. For sure some older people may struggle but I am sure they have kids or pals who help them. This government is overseeing the biggest tax rises ever so people feel poorer and don’t see increased benefits in public services. Increasing the size of the state & reducing private sector is doomed. Labour has zero clue how to achieve growth in the economy which is essential. Every policy is stalling the economy. Labour have always been brilliant at spending our money.

Jayne Thorburn ● 23d

Yes you’re wrong and you’ve admitted it so it’s pointless to now try to mitigate your  mistake by trying to worm your way out of it with baseless assumptions which are actually quite derogatory and insulting to older people. Suffice to say that I know many, many older people who can’t do without their smartphones and use them regularly with ease. In fact I can’t think of any elderly people who struggle with them. The clue is in the name. These phones are ‘smart’ so one doesn’t need to be a genius to use them. I’ve seen very old people using the TfL  App to check their bus times etc. Regarding the State Pension being part of the Benefits Payments I can’t see where Jayne is wrong or where she disputed that?  It is an absolute fact that the total Benefits Bill is more than our Income tax revenue and why government borrowing has substantially increased.  You are right that some state pensions may not be claiming all that’s due to them and long may that continue as the Government will be grateful for that because if that wasn’t happening they would  be under even more pressure to cut benefits to all the bone idle people who should be working but prefer to stay at home getting fat and the asylum seeker illegal immigrants. That would cause much angst for the backbenchers for sure.

Steve Taylor ● 23d

Steve.  I'm wrong of course and you're right in that many people do own them - but they don't won't or can't actually use them!!!  They are probably mostly older people for whom they are too new and fiddly and constantly changing to get used to using and they are probably kept safely in a drawer.  Deteriorating sight and dexterity and those constantly changing functions on them interfere with what's left of what may have been the smoothly running and routine of their everyday life.  How many people have been given or have bought them and they are not being used or are only being used for a couple of their myriad functions?Jayne is absolutely wrong about benefits.  The greatest part of the benefit bill is pensions and pensioners benefits. Many vulnerable  pensioners who are in need are still not claiming them and instead of railing against those on benefits those who are so loud and vociferous could better put their energies into helping to patiently solve some of the hurdles they face. 

Philippa Bond ● 23d

More unadulterated nonsense from Philippa Bond. “ As of 2025, approximately 95% to 96% of UK adults own a smartphone, representing around 53 million people. Smartphone penetration is nearly universal among younger demographics (98%-100% for ages 16-54) and remains high at over 80% for those aged 65 and above.”“ Approximately 92% to 95% of UK adults owned a smartphone as of 2023–2025, making it one of the highest penetration rates in the world. Ownership is nearly universal among younger demographics, while over 90% of adults aged 55–64 and around 72% of those over 75 also use smartphones, with over 98% of adults owning some form of mobile phone.Overall Penetration: Data suggests around 95% of Brits own a smartphone as of 2025. Other 2023 reports put the figure at 91-94%.Age Breakdown: While adoption is nearly universal among younger, tech-savvy users, 93% of those aged 55–64 in the UK used a smartphone in 2024. Among those aged 75 and over, the figure drops to around 72%.Children's Ownership: Smartphone ownership is high even in young children; 74% of 5–10 year-olds who have a phone use a smartphone, increasing to 93% by ages 16–17.Market Trends: The UK has one of the highest smartphone penetration rates in the world, with over 50 million active users”

Steve Taylor ● 24d

The fact is that the majority of phone thefts is organised crime the UK represents 40% of phones stolen across Europe. The police are targeting the top tier who are making millions from the thefts. We are too soft on crime just like shoplifting. It has nothing to do with rich & poor thats just an excuse. You should watch newsnight tonight on the subject. You may not know that our welfare bill is more than income tax we generate a year, too much fraud its all too easy. You need to see real poverty it’s not in the UK.

Jayne Thorburn ● 24d

Vanessa is absolutely right that it isn't surprising that  phones are stolen when people walk around carrying hundreds of pounds worth of electronic equipment in their hand.  There were an awful lot stolen from people arriving at train stations and walking straight out into the street outside holding their mobile phone in their hand.    There is an absolutely huge wealth gap in this country between rich and poor.https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/what-you-need-to-know-about-uk-inequality/This is what happens when you have such a huge wealth gap between rich and poor.  It was obvious in places like South America over 30 years ago where people were sleeping outside on rooftops visible from the gated communities.  It is too easy for some people to avoid AND evade paying a fair and graduated amount of tax. It would be good if there was more free help for those who can't afford the tax consultants that the wealthy can afford to use to minimise even more the amount of tax they pay.So many of those on welfare benefits are ALSO working but just not earning enough to live on.Lots of people don't and won't ever have mobile smartphones.

Philippa Bond ● 24d

Vanessa,to call people out for using their phone in public and to reason that it's 'asking for some light fingered individual to whip said 'phone'is a bit of a stretch of what might be reasonably expected of behaviour in society.Does the same apply to someone daring to wear a decent watch or jewellery? Perhaps if there were harsher consequences for thieves and their parents if they are youngsters we might not see such a high level of this stuff.

Keith Iddon ● 24d

Vanessa please get into the 21st century…The Greens are dangerous criticising police for stopping a man who stabbed 2 people is utterly appalling. As for people using their phone to expect it to be stolen says everything about you, get into todays society, mobile phones are an essential tool for so many reasons.

Jayne Thorburn ● 24d

So long as kids turn out respectful, polite, well mannered and know how to behave in social situations, how a parent achieves this is up to them.  Shoplifting, stealing mobile phones, using pavements for e scooters is none of the above.

Jayne Thorburn ● 24d

So not a proponent of permissive parenting, soft parenting or gentle parenting then?

Philippa Bond ● 24d

It’s called discipline that starts in the home, respect for others and good manners……..

Jayne Thorburn ● 24d

So which of the organisations that we already have will help to bring some order and greater confidence and meaningful independence into the lives of some of these latch-key children whose parents or parent or carer are not only unable to keep fully occupied and on the straight and narrow but may also be overcompensating for in their guilt at not being at home for them by providing for them too much - so much so that they actually don't gain enough confidence and independence of action to say 'no' to some of the even wilder elements of society?

Philippa Bond ● 24d

Jayne ThorburnDate/Time: 30/04/26 11:45:00"This has nothing to do with youth clubs and the element of society causing this trouble wouldn't go anyway. Then we have Zack, Green Party stating the police were heavy handed with the guy who stabbed 2 people because they used a taser seriously. The greens are big trouble if they think it was heavy handed. Lawless London is down to Sadiq super poor policing policy.  Shoplifting, too much money via welfare, high youth unemployment, these people are bored and think it’s funny to terrorise society. Poor parenting lock them all up in youth offenders places, make them work for nothing hard labour thats the answer. We have no deterrents at all."Talk about hysteria! Didn't you forget bring back the birch? Oh! and what about the stocks? - is there room for a set along Chiswick High Rd. or perhaps they could be on Turnham Green? Let's be honest a lot of today's crime - stealing mobiles for one - is because daft people will insist on wandering along nattering and waving the blasted things  about - just asking for some light fingered individual to whip said 'phone straight out of their hands? And those people who get cars broken into when they will insist - against all sensible advice - on leaving  belongings on display just asking for someone to steal them? That's not to say that everything is rosy but it is hardly the dystopian vision your post paints. And how this is all the fault of The Mayor or the Green Party is another daft assumption, no doubt you'll be saying that if this country is daft enough to listen to right-wing nutjobs and their tough-guy utterances then all will be sweeteness and light. Dream on.

Vanessa Smith ● 24d

The CCF is the combined cadet force.I was in it at my school.  It was a volunteer force but everyone had to join.It taught me, Inter Alia,  the first and second IA for a Bren Gun, but were never allowed to fire one, and the whole thing was a complete waste of time (mostly square bashing) on a Wednesday afternoon.If you let todays youth near live ammunition and the weapons to use it, expect a decrease in life expectancy.

James Roy ● 24d

We have children leaving school unable to make a sandwich and a cup of tea when they do get a job as a carer - whether part-time as an interim occupation or as a career.  There obviously aren't enough carers because the pay is low and there are lots of empty jobs there.  Something to think about so good luck if and when you need a carer!Children nowadays can end up with plenty of exam passes and at university with no knowledge of healthy quick and easy to cook meals and unable to even cook mashed potato but very adept at ordering online junk food. Locking people up is most definitely not the answer - since there certainly isn't enough space to lock up people carrying out far worse crimes!I heard someone suggesting the Territorial Army some days ago - I think that should be the CCF? - but having just listened to a programme about the irresponsible behaviour of some of the British Army abroad this morning I'm not so sure that they should be fast-tracked there either.  They  have some growing up to do first.I completely agree that there used to be two parents in most families but not just that - there also used to be uncles and aunts and cousins living in the same locality so there was an extended family - whereas wars have torn families apart and split them up.I also saw a van recently regarding Community Pay-Back and asking anyone with ideas for jobs these offenders could do to get in touch with them.

Philippa Bond ● 24d

True

Janice Evans ● 24d

I doubt many would voluntarily attend a boot camp.Aside from youth clubs there used also to be Scouts and Girl Guides and the Youth Cadets.In fact there used to be a large Youth Cadets facility at White City.There also used to be two parents in most families.

Keith Iddon ● 24d

This has nothing to do with youth clubs and the element of society causing this trouble wouldn't go anyway. Then we have Zack, Green Party stating the police were heavy handed with the guy who stabbed 2 people because they used a taser seriously. The greens are big trouble if they think it was heavy handed. Lawless London is down to Sadiq super poor policing policy.  Shoplifting, too much money via welfare, high youth unemployment, these people are bored and think it’s funny to terrorise society. Poor parenting lock them all up in youth offenders places, make them work for nothing hard labour thats the answer. We have no deterrents at all.

Jayne Thorburn ● 24d

Boot camps would probably be better.

Janice Evans ● 24d

Because of the Clapham riots.

Janice Evans ● 24d

Really? That's reassuring.

Keith Iddon ● 24d

Sadiq has put funding forward apparently.

Janice Evans ● 24d

Janice,which youth clubs? Where are they?

Keith Iddon ● 24d

Years ago people started work at a younger age and started a family were busy, these day younger ones have nothing to do which is probably why money has been put into youth clubs.  And they are at Uni during their 20s, they go on about low birth rate but they have created the situation by over schooling instead of focussing on employment, once they have a job and reaching 30s they don't want children they want a career.  And quite often these high paid jobs are not there for them.

Janice Evans ● 24d

I would hope that if and when anyone is worried by what they are seeing and think it suspicious  - they are actually reporting it and not just trying to stir up trouble:https://www.metengage.co.uk/

Philippa Bond ● 25d

Agree Jim, I remember Greggs employing someone as doorman, anyone unwanted never got in.

Janice Evans ● 26d

I visited the mega Westfield Shopping Centre in Stratford, East London yesterday and noticed a massive increase in yellow uniformed Security Staff on duty. Also a few police and a sniffer dog. Possibly 100 in total. From where had they all been recruited and made available?On enquiring I was told that the West Ham Football Club now play their matches next door at the Olympic Area ... and that "today they are playing Everton". And many of the crowds walk through the Shopping Centre ...noisily and often can be... a threat to the shops and customers.If the our local Police haven't the personnel available ...why can't private enforcement staff not be provided?Local life seems to have reached that stage.

Jim Lawes ● 28d

We have very few police compared to say France. I read another 50000 to 80000 officers would be needed to bring us up to their number per head of the population.

Nicholas Beard ● 28d

Sadly it’s nothing new, and something no mayor of London has managed to deal with.From 2004:https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=concrime61.htm

Andrew Jones ● 29d