Latest news with #Northerner
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Voices: Labour wants us to live like working people and do whatever working people do – but what exactly is that?
There are 109 paid members of the government (there'd be more if the figure wasn't limited by law), and, as we've come to learn, each has their own definition of what constitutes 'working people'. This includes non-definition definitions, such as the one most recently offered by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves: 'I don't think we need to define more than that, really. We made a commitment in our manifesto to not increase those taxes. We didn't last year. It remains our commitment for this parliament.' To be fair, she was referring back to her party's well-known manifesto commitment ('income tax, VAT and national insurance are the key taxes that working people pay'). And that's undeniable to the point of truism. But what this fails to acknowledge is that lots of the idle rich pay considerable sums in VAT every time they buy a private jet, or dine out at a fancy restaurant. Should we consider them to be 'working people'? Reeves's deputy, Darren Jones, chief secretary to the Treasury, has been a bit more specific of late, stating that the term 'working people' covers 'anyone with a payslip'. That could be extremely broad in the figurative sense of doing paid work for an employer – or very narrow if it literally means you get a physical slip of paper on which your gross and net pay, tax, NI and pension contributions are typed out. Of course, when she was under less pressure, in those easy, balmy days of opposition, Reeves was more forthcoming – well, somewhat – when she suggested that 'working people are people who go out to work and work for their incomes', adding: 'There are people who do have savings, who have been able to save up, and those are working people as well.' How big are their savings, though? No figure has ever been suggested. The nearest we've got was when Keir Starmer said that working people are those 'who earn their living, rely on our services, and don't really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble'. That's not bad, except that even the richest people rely on the council to get their gold-plated bins collected, and for other contingencies – say, if Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had gotten run over by one of his fine classic cars, and been taken to an NHS hospital in an NHS ambulance and fixed up by an NHS doctor. More recently still, at the weekend, transport secretary Heidi Alexander had a stab at it, defining working people as folk on 'a modest income'. Then again, Lisa Nandy, culture secretary and professional Northerner, conceded that people with six-figure salaries can be 'working people' too (which is just as well, seeing as she's on £159,851 per annum). In her own words: 'I mean, if they go to work, obviously they will be working.' Unarguable, but inconsistent with the remarks of her colleagues. Over on education, meanwhile, Bridget Phillipson refused to say whether the self-employed are 'working people', confining herself to those 'whose main income arises from the fact that they go out to work every day', which must surely include small business owners who are plumbers, window cleaners or pest controllers – the ones who cannot work from home, and whose only boss is themselves. I suppose that trying to define 'working people' is like the old saying about trying to define an elephant – you know one when you see one. On that basis, the endless variety of categorisations offered by Labour politicians makes some sense, because nearly everyone works for a living, has worked for a living (pensioners), will work for a living (students) or would work for a living if they could get a job, or, come to think of it, start their own business. If Labour said that they wouldn't put taxes on 'working people' up, then they meant nearly everyone, and that's how they got to win the election – because no one thought that any prospective tax hikes would affect them. This impression was greatly amplified by the high-profile changes they did propose – VAT on private school fees, attacking the super-rich non doms and ending the use of offshore truest to avoid tax. 'Working people' was a way of saying 'not you' to the floating voter of 2024 worried about the state taking even more of their income away. It's better than 'working-class', which is pejorative, or 'middle class', which would be too exclusive – and, besides, we don't like talking about class these days. It's a bit divisive. We can see another reason why Labour relied on such a rubbery concept as 'working people' – it was based on the searing experience of previous – lost – elections. It's because as soon as a shadow chancellor mentioned any kind of figure about who might actually be worse off under a Labour government, the media went mad and the Tories used it as an 'attack on aspiration' and labelled it a 'tax bombshell', even though few people would ever have been injured by this legendary socialist missile. If Labour's tax and spend plans that would revolutionise health and education cost anyone as much as a quid a week, the press crucified the hapless Labour leader of the day. So now they don't get too specific and they left much unsaid in 2024, sticking to the equally banal slogan of 'change'. Well, we all know what happened next. And what was a meaningless but useful slogan for Opposition has turned into a terrible burden in government, precisely because every 'working person' pays council tax (up), income tax (thresholds frozen, probably for the rest of the decade), has savings and a pension (hit by capital gains tax rises), and, realistically, is affected by the rise in employers' national insurance contributions. Starmer and Reeves left themselves no room for manoeuvre even in good times, and were critically vulnerable to making their pledge sound like a sick joke in the bad times. They should never have given the British people the impression that only the richest would have to make any financial sacrifice to put the public finances on a sustainable basis. But, then again, given that the British are a devoutly cakeist people, who think they can enjoy fine public services without paying much for them, Labour would never have won the election if they'd told the truth – which is that Brexit, which we voted for, is still costing us dearly. In the end, it's all our own fault, and we 'working people' have only ourselves to blame. Still, there's always Reform UK, more than happy to tell us we can have our cake and eat it. Irresistible, isn't it?
Glasgow Times
a day ago
- Glasgow Times
Can you take sandwiches through airport security in the UK?
While most travellers are well aware of rules around liquids, other items like sandwiches and wraps can be tricky. It is for this reason that we have sought to answer this and other commonly asked questions. Can I take sandwiches and wraps through airport security? Most people coming to airports falsely believe that solid foods like sandwiches and wraps are not allowed through airport security. Travellers are allowed to bring solid foods through security, but to save themselves hassle and speed up the process, they should pack these items in clear plastic bags. Can I take a vape on a plane? With vapes growing in popularity, more and more people have started to have questions around travelling with these items. Northerner states that any vaping device with a built-in battery or an installed battery should be packed in carry-on baggage and turned off. Even though passengers are allowed to have their vapes with them on an aircraft, they are not permitted to use them. Recommended Reading: What are the hand luggage rules for liquids and why do they exist? According to the UK Government, liquids in containers of more than 100ml are banned from passing through security at most airports. This rule was introduced in 2006 to make it harder for those with hostile intent from carrying explosive liquids onto planes. Since then, there have been moves to slowly ease these rules through the use of more advanced scanners. Earlier this year, Edinburgh Airport lifted the restriction, meaning passengers can each take up to two litres through security.
Leader Live
a day ago
- Leader Live
Can you take sandwiches through airport security in the UK?
While most travellers are well aware of rules around liquids, other items like sandwiches and wraps can be tricky. It is for this reason that we have sought to answer this and other commonly asked questions. Most people coming to airports falsely believe that solid foods like sandwiches and wraps are not allowed through airport security. Travellers are allowed to bring solid foods through security, but to save themselves hassle and speed up the process, they should pack these items in clear plastic bags. With vapes growing in popularity, more and more people have started to have questions around travelling with these items. Northerner states that any vaping device with a built-in battery or an installed battery should be packed in carry-on baggage and turned off. Even though passengers are allowed to have their vapes with them on an aircraft, they are not permitted to use them. Full list of all the items that are banned from hold luggage at UK airports Experts share 5-minute passport check everyone should do before travelling Want a smoother airport journey? Travel expert shares best time of day to fly According to the UK Government, liquids in containers of more than 100ml are banned from passing through security at most airports. This rule was introduced in 2006 to make it harder for those with hostile intent from carrying explosive liquids onto planes. Since then, there have been moves to slowly ease these rules through the use of more advanced scanners. Earlier this year, Edinburgh Airport lifted the restriction, meaning passengers can each take up to two litres through security.
Daily Mail
30-06-2025
- Sport
- Daily Mail
Robin Goodfellow's racing tips: Best bets for Tuesday, July 1
Mail Sport's racing expert Robin Goodfellow delivers his tips for Tuesday's meetings at Brighton, Chelmsford City, Musselburgh and Stratford. Brighton Robin Goodfellow 2.40 Bear To Dream 3.10 Desert Beauty 3.40 Uncle Dick 4.10 Paragon 4.40 Twilight Guest 5.15 CALLOUT (nap) Gimcrack 2.40 River Wharfe 3.10 My Boy Harry 3.40 Buy The Dip 4.10 Paragon 4.40 Twilight Guest 5.15 Play Me Chelmsford City Robin Goodfellow 6.00 Belgravian 6.30 The Thames Boatman (nb) 7.00 Pixie Diva 7.30 Little Keilee 8.00 Cloud Cover 8.30 Blindedbythelights 9.00 Tribal Wisdom Gimcrack 6.00 Belgravian 6.30 Ziggy's Missile 7.00 Darn Hot Time 7.30 Stella Hogan 8.00 JABAARA (nap) 8.30 Blindedbythelights 9.00 Bamburgh NEWMARKET – 6.30 Ziggy's Missile (nb); 8.00 JABAARA (nap). Musselburgh Robin Goodfellow 2.00 Big Fun 2.30 Made All 3.00 The Trickster 3.30 Purple Martini 4.00 Code Purple 4.30 Yaaser 5.00 Ski Angel Robin Goodfellow 2.00 Big Fun 2.30 Falcon Nine 3.00 The Trickster 3.30 Purple Martini 4.00 Shine On Brendan 4.30 Yaaser 5.00 Wee Mary NORTHERNER – 2.00 BIG FUN (nap); 4.30 Benacre (nb). Stratford Robin Goodfellow 6.18 Aspire Tower 6.48 T Or Coffey 7.18 Hill Station 7.48 Belvedere Blast 8.18 Man Of The Sea 8.48 Jury Belle Gimcrack 6.18 Finest View 6.48 Candle Wax 7.18 Charlie My Boy 7.48 Roxboro River 8.18 Magic Seven 8.48 Jury Belle
Edinburgh Live
17-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Edinburgh Live
Couple visit American chippy and are baffled to find Scottish delicacy on menu
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info While fish and chips is often seen as a quintessentially British dish, it turns out you can savour this classic in the heart of New York City. Nestled in Greenwich Village, A Salt and Battery serves up authentic British-style fish and chips, complete with all the trimmings you'd expect from your local chippy. From battered cod or haddock to chip butties and even battered sausage, this overseas chippy doesn't skimp on variety. Visitors can also indulge in traditional sides like mushy peas, gravy, tartar sauce, or beans. But the burning question remains: can it truly match up to the British original? This was precisely what one couple aimed to discover during their recent trip to New York. Ryan and Jade were eager to see if A Salt and Battery could live up to their expectations, so they popped in to order their usual and conduct a transatlantic taste test. To their astonishment, the menu boasted an array of choices, including a Scottish favourite that caught their eye. "I never knew there was a British chip shop in New York city," exclaimed Ryan in their video. Meanwhile, Jade placed an order for fish and chips, ensuring she enquired about the availability of a side of gravy. "It was exactly like a chip shop at home," Jade stated, as viewers got a glimpse inside the establishment before the video cut to her unveiling their meal. "There was a choice of fish, we went for cod, cos cod is the best. Everyone knows that." As she poured gravy over the battered fish, Jade commented on its runny consistency, suggesting it hadn't been prepared 'by a Northerner'. She also expressed surprise at finding it on the menu alongside mushy peas. She then showcased the main meal, featuring a bed of chippy chips topped with a large crispy battered fish fillet. "It looks like a normal fish and chips," Jade observed, revealing that the meal had set them back $18 (£13.27) before tucking in with a fork. "It's good. It tastes very fishy." The "pièce de résistance" however was tucked away in a small paper bag, to which Ryan said: "I haven't seen these anywhere outside of Scotland." ""Looks like an alien invasion," he quipped as he held up a battered Mars bar, which they purchased for $5 (£3.69). Although he didn't provide a review, his impressed expression as he took the first bite of the fried sweet treat spoke volumes. In the video's comment section, several viewers shared their thoughts on the chippy, with some Americans revealing other British foods they enjoy. "Wait til you find out we call it shepherds pie even though it's usually just cottage pie," one person noted, while another viewer shared : "The entire state of Wisconsin does fish and chips, but they call it fish fry. Culver's is a fast food chain from Wisconsin that features usually cod, and during Lent, they also have walleye." "Clearly, you never had Halibut," another viewer said. "A weekly visit for me. Shame it costs waaaaay more than in the UK. But 100% worth it!" exclaimed another viewer. However, a different person argued: "Fish and chips is disgusting. French fries and fish sticks. I ate that when I was poor."
