Best Of

There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.

Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.

Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.

Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.

Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.

There has been virtually no interest in Farage's girlfriend's house in Frinton. Certainly none on how she was in a position to afford it.

As to Gill being a nobody. I suspect you have a point. There should however be media questions, and detailed ones at that, asking Farage about the content of his statements in the European Parliament and elsewhere and how he reached the conclusions he did, bearing in mind the rest of us thought Putin to be an expansionist with serious human rights questions to answer both at home and abroad at the time Farage was singing his praises.

I have not accused Mr Farage of any wrongdoing but I would like him to explain the incredible, presumably coincidental, similarities between his speeches and Gill's speeches.

I am of the opinion that our next Prime Minister having unexplained connections with an enemy of our state is far more vexing than Starmer tripping over at the G20.

There has been quite a lot of speculation over Farage's house in Frinton, and if there was something in it, or turns out to be in the future, no doubt it will be big news

As for anti EU politicians making speeches blaming the EU for Russian aggression towards Ukraine, you must have noticed that UKIP MEPs, and Eurosceptics in general, blame(d) the EU for almost everything. They didn't have to be paid to say so. That's why it didn't really feel like big news for Gill to be making the speeches and comments he did back then

We know Russia has been funding populist right wing parties across Europe. Marine Le Pen was bankrolled by Russian bank loans. The connections between Russia and AfD are dense and manifold.

We also saw with our own eyes Farage present on Russia Today, spend a lot of time with various Russian officials, and involve himself with characters like Julian Assange.

It would be incredibly surprising, tbh, if UKIP and Brexit Parties (dunno about Reform) were NOT funded in part by Russian interests, even if nobody has found a “smoking gun.”

An astonishing amount of global ne’erdowells, including Epstein and Trump, seem to have Russian connections.

It’s kind of weird. I don’t know anybody with “Russian connections”, but perhaps I just don’t mix in the right circles.

Lobbying dressed up as a new article.

What great value the license fee is

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq4jv293d5o

And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?

Whatever happened to civic society?

I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.

Most of it resonated with me.

The right to buy, whether right or wrong, was not the problem. Failure to build in line with needs is the problem.
Failure of regulation not privatisation, whether right or wrong, has led to Thames.
Neither Thatcher nor Blair created a capitalist society. Neither derogated from our fundamentally social democrat version of capitalist society.

But Mrs T didn't let the councils recycle the income from house sales into more houses.

Exactly. The power to build not the right to buy was the problem.

Local councils being obliged to sell off assets for well below the market value wasn't so great either.

Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.

Both arrogant and ridiculous.

I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.

It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).

The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.

Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.

It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.

I'm afraid it is.

The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.

I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.

Nobody particularly cares about your approbation or disapprobation.

Anyone who can witness the Dmitriev-Witkoff plan and think that the U.S. remains the only choice is simply not thinking straight.

You cared enough to respond immediately, which tells us everything we need to know.

We don't need to resort to hyperbole to make points about Trump, and we should keep our assessments in proportion - lest we make naive decisions.

Oh get over yourself.

If I have time, I generally respond to anyone who responds to me.

Except WilliamG who I find extremely tedious.

I try to do likewise, Gardenwalker, although I do not make an exception for William. I do not however answer TSE. It's not that I don't like him or anything, it's just that he's a lawyer and I'm always afraid he might send me an invoice.

Have we discussed this woe is me article about inheritance tax..

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/mum-died-148k-inheritance-tax-bill-robbery-4043112?utm_campaign=social_fb_posts&utm_medium=social&utm_social_handle_id=118077678252869&utm_social_post_id=589120167&utm_source=fb

Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..

But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.

It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.

This is what is always said but it is not really true. For the vast majority troubled by IHT their major asset is their house on which they will have a substantial gain from the time that they bought it. And they have paid no tax on that gain at all. Unless they have bought an annuity the next largest asset is likely to be pension funds. On which they have not only not paid tax but had tax relief. If they own a business then there will be unrealised (and untaxed) capital gains on heritable assets and goodwill. The taxed income people complain about is likely to be a relatively modest contributor to the estate because it is bloody difficult to have meaningful savings out of taxed income in this country, thus maintaining the financial dominance of our ruling class.

If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.

I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.

I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.

To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.

But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.

Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.

The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.

In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.

So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.

Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.

But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.