Apparently Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, was founded by former slaves (and others) sent from London. Fascinating stuff.
And, also apparently, the founders promptly built themselves deep south, gone with the wind type mansions and enslaved later arrivals to make them do all the work.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
On the opposite side I do wonder how much of the abolitionist movement was not from a desire to help the slaves but rather to damage the slave owners.
Freeing the slaves *was* damaging the slave owners. Can't separate the two. Unless you paid compo out of taxation, like UK did.
BTW 'abolitionist' meant diffferent things in the UK and US.
Certainly in the USA there was a lot of hostility to the 'slave power' with a belief it should be broken by ending slavery and then transporting the former slaves to Africa.
I'd like to know more about the founding of Liberia, as I recall from a news story about the country that the interrelations of those coming from america with the native peoples in that area of Africa was not exactly harmonious, and it's been an independent state for a very long time now, as compared to the rest of the continent (apart from Ethiopia perhaps).
But Miklosvar would probably just complain that wanting to know about that is just an excusing of European colonalism, so probably best not to delve into it. Knowledge is dangerous, it allows people to excuse things, dontchaknow.
Fail. Either your appeal to history is utterly irrelevant, which makes you irrational and not worth talking to, or it makes post 1500 European slave trading look worse (and I can't imagine how that would work), or,it makes it look better. Which is it?
It makes it look worse, frankly, because of its scale, organisation, it's breadth, and therefore its impact, which is on a different level to the sorts of slavery we had seen previously in terms of raw numbers for a start (ancient civilizations destroying one another probably was more total, but much lesser in scale I would think).
But I have answered every question of yours even as you continue to imply I mean the opposite of what I say . How about you finally answer the question of why it is you appear to be insisting that knowing about other bad things, and thus mentioning them, is wrong?
As for irrational, you bolded a quote of mine ignoring the remainder of a sentence which made the opposite point to which you claimed it did, and you complained about me mentioning african slavery in a post which was a response to a post about african slavery, asking why I had brought up african slavery - yet I am being irrational? If you ignore the parts of what I write that go against what you think i was saying, of course it sound weird!
We've rabbited on for ages now and are no doubt boring everyone, but the fundamental problem seems to be you believe I am seeking to defend something, and even though I say I am not, you obviously think I am lying about that, so I'm not sure we're getting much more illumination from this.
Apparently Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, was founded by former slaves (and others) sent from London. Fascinating stuff.
And, also apparently, the founders promptly built themselves deep south, gone with the wind type mansions and enslaved later arrivals to make them do all the work.
Jesus, there's a lot of loseroid widdler waving here tonight.
This white wine I'm drinking BTW from Tesco is total piss. I wish I was happy all the time like @Leon and all the other mega-succeeders here. Guys and occasional gals who selflessly devote their time to their monitor screens.
Live reporting thread, on how not to behave just before you’re sentenced.
…Never seen anything like this … in any Jan 6 hearing. Southard is unleashing a list of grievances. She’s thrown away her written remarks, ignored her lawyer’s warning, is glaring periodically at prosecutors and has launched into something of a tirade .. https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1679939763757891584
She’d have got the ban hammer from Mike for language, too.
Putting a lot of faith in a Trump pardon in a few years time?
Jesus, there's a lot of loseroid widdler waving here tonight.
This white wine I'm drinking BTW from Tesco is total piss. I wish I was happy all the time like @Leon and all the other mega-succeeders here. Guys and occasional gals who selflessly devote their time to their monitor screens.
Chill it into submission. 30 mins in the freezer ought to do it.
Early bid for worst manifesto idea at a cost of only £7bn + what remains of the Conservative party’s dignity
Perhaps they should employ Gaby to run their campaign for them.
It just blows me away, this "The Tories can't recover from such polling" groupthink here. I detest the Tories much more than most people do, but that's not the sensible way to look at it. Assume the campaign will be run by people with at least two brain cells to rub together. Then ask what they've got in their armoury and whether they'll get traction. Or, of course, don't, and lose your money on the betting exchanges. No skin off my nose. Anyone who thinks Starmer and Labour can just coast to victory is an idiot.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
I don't think that I have ever used the flag option but this tempted me. This is not a subject for humour, black or otherwise. The abuse of children is something I see professionally on an almost daily basis. There is nothing funny about it. Believe me.
WTF? WT actual actual F? Who said this was humour, black or otherwise? It certainly was never intended to be. Are you saying that I am, ridiculously, comparing the slave trade to an actual serious crime?
Well what are you saying? That because the families put them there that abusing children is "fine". That there is any kind of context that makes this ok? That because this sort of evil existed in the past it is ok now? Please explain.
Jesus. Have you had a bad day in court?
I have reread what I said and I cannot see how it could be misunderstood. But for the avoidance of doubt,
1. My hypothetical defence of myself for my hypothetical child abuse is obviously worthless and morally repulsive
2. it is on all fours with the defence of slavery to which I was replying, which also says it has existed throughout history, lots of other people (in this context, Arab slavers) did it too, and the African slaves were generally made available to Europeans by other Africans (analogous to the appalling truth that child prostitutes are often made to be that, by their own families).
3. therefore the defence of slavery is by analogy as worthless and repugnant as the defence outlined in para 1.
Are we clear now?
Except absolutely no one was defending slavery or excusing anyone. Indeed the comments from Kle4, Sean and myself were all crictical of the fact that people want to look at one section of the slave trade and say it was super bad and use that as an excuse to ignore the part of their own country/vested interest.
You have created a truly weird and irrelevant straw man to attack something that was not even being defended.
You are just wrong.
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
bib 1. is exactly my "Child brothels have existed throughout history", bib 2. is exactly my "you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place." I accept that the usual "the Arabs were at it too" does not crop up there, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad. So how can you say, straw man?
I note you very carefuly did not highlight the rest of that sentence.
"without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible."
Such selective quoting is frankly ignorant and stupid and just makes it look like you are looking for an argument where none exists.
It is sad you have nothing better to do on a Friday night than try and find fault where none exists.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I was being flippant.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
You're probably right.
I suspect, deep down, they know, or rather the current incarnation of Conservatives know, once they lose power they will never get it back. I'm NOT saying it's the end for the Conservative Party - far from it - but this manifestation of Conservative thinking is intellectually bankrupt and exhausted and we deserve the opportunity to put it out of our misery.
IHT is one of those bizarre issues where people who already have no hope of exceeding the current threshold will still vote for it to be scrapped.
I can understand the irrationality, particularly as when IHT goes, something we all cherish will have to go too.
I would consider one tax on income, combining Income Tax, NI, CGT and IHT. The basic rate would be slightly less than the combined IT and NI rates, with a larger nil rate band, say £15k. CGT and IHT would increase your annual income, and be taxed accordingly. There could still be separate nil rate bands for CGT and IHT. IHT would be taxed on the recipient, not the estate. If your annual income was £30,000 and you received an inheritance of £100,000 after any nil rate band was applied, you would pay tax on an income of £130,000. Sits back and awaits brickbats.
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
Jesus, there's a lot of loseroid widdler waving here tonight.
This white wine I'm drinking BTW from Tesco is total piss. I wish I was happy all the time like @Leon and all the other mega-succeeders here. Guys and occasional gals who selflessly devote their time to their monitor screens.
Chill it into submission. 30 mins in the freezer ought to do it.
I've finished it now. Next time I'll do what you advise. Thanks!
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
I would hope 14 challenger tanks being given would not count as stripping the army of all its (tank) equipment, even in this day and age, likewise with out types of kit. I do wonder how many of those storm shadow missiles we sent, since we apparently did not have many to begin with.
I don't think anyone thinks the West should give Ukraine all our stuff, there is just disagreement on how much can be sent, how soon, what types of stuff, and how quickly it can be replaced when it is sent. It certainly gets more use there.
The americans in particular must have massive stockpiles of some stuff.
Jesus, there's a lot of loseroid widdler waving here tonight.
This white wine I'm drinking BTW from Tesco is total piss. I wish I was happy all the time like @Leon and all the other mega-succeeders here. Guys and occasional gals who selflessly devote their time to their monitor screens.
@Leon has told us all that he has on occasions suffered from depression and the lockdown was tough on him and I'm sure all of us have our flaws and our moments just as everyone does. Nobody is happy all the time. That probably didn't help and was probably only slightly better than saying cheer up. Hope it helped. Hope I didn't total misinterpret your post.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I was being flippant.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
You're probably right.
I suspect, deep down, they know, or rather the current incarnation of Conservatives know, once they lose power they will never get it back. I'm NOT saying it's the end for the Conservative Party - far from it - but this manifestation of Conservative thinking is intellectually bankrupt and exhausted and we deserve the opportunity to put it out of our misery.
IHT is one of those bizarre issues where people who already have no hope of exceeding the current threshold will still vote for it to be scrapped.
I can understand the irrationality, particularly as when IHT goes, something we all cherish will have to go too.
I would consider one tax on income, combining Income Tax, NI, CGT and IHT. The basic rate would be slightly less than the combined IT and NI rates, with a larger nil rate band, say £15k. CGT and IHT would increase your annual income, and be taxed accordingly. There could still be separate nil rate bands for CGT and IHT. IHT would be taxed on the recipient, not the estate. If your annual income was £30,000 and you received an inheritance of £100,000 after any nil rate band was applied, you would pay tax on an income of £130,000. Sits back and awaits brickbats.
The Irish system of inheritance tax is, I believe (from dim and vague memory) based around a lifetime allowance for the recipient. This is presumably a pain in the arse to keep records* for, but it's an improvement on your suggestion which would see a large difference in inheriting the same amount in one go, or spread out over a few years.
* I don't know if there's an annual threshold below which any gift does not count towards your lifetime allowance, say, which would ameliorate that, but anyway.
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
I would hope 14 challenger tanks being given would not count as stripping the army of all its (tank) equipment, even in this day and age, likewise with out types of kit. I do wonder how many of those storm shadow missiles we sent, since we apparently did not have many to begin with.
I don't think anyone thinks the West should give Ukraine all our stuff, there is just disagreement on how much can be sent, how soon, what types of stuff, and how quickly it can be replaced when it is sent. It certainly gets more use there.
The americans in particular must have massive stockpiles of some stuff.
Ugh, just realised I said 'it's' when I meant 'its' - apologies.
To even discuss that there might be any sort of limit is considered giving succour to Putin here.
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
I would hope 14 challenger tanks being given would not count as stripping the army of all its (tank) equipment, even in this day and age, likewise with out types of kit. I do wonder how many of those storm shadow missiles we sent, since we apparently did not have many to begin with.
I don't think anyone thinks the West should give Ukraine all our stuff, there is just disagreement on how much can be sent, how soon, what types of stuff, and how quickly it can be replaced when it is sent. It certainly gets more use there.
The americans in particular must have massive stockpiles of some stuff.
We gave Ukraine our AS-90s - which admittedly it was a wonder that the army's mechanics could get them moving from the accounts shared on here - and we're replacing them with brand new, and superior, Archer artillery systems from Sweden. For most European militaries the Ukraine War has been a fantastic opportunity to get rid of vast amounts of [nearly] obsolete kit and replace it with new. See also the announcement today (or yesterday) of the 100 BTR-60s being sent by Bulgaria, who are hoping to get Strykers from the US to replace them with.
I think the only exception to this was the Danish decision to give all of their relatively new Caesar artillery systems to Ukraine.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
I don't think that I have ever used the flag option but this tempted me. This is not a subject for humour, black or otherwise. The abuse of children is something I see professionally on an almost daily basis. There is nothing funny about it. Believe me.
WTF? WT actual actual F? Who said this was humour, black or otherwise? It certainly was never intended to be. Are you saying that I am, ridiculously, comparing the slave trade to an actual serious crime?
Well what are you saying? That because the families put them there that abusing children is "fine". That there is any kind of context that makes this ok? That because this sort of evil existed in the past it is ok now? Please explain.
Jesus. Have you had a bad day in court?
I have reread what I said and I cannot see how it could be misunderstood. But for the avoidance of doubt,
1. My hypothetical defence of myself for my hypothetical child abuse is obviously worthless and morally repulsive
2. it is on all fours with the defence of slavery to which I was replying, which also says it has existed throughout history, lots of other people (in this context, Arab slavers) did it too, and the African slaves were generally made available to Europeans by other Africans (analogous to the appalling truth that child prostitutes are often made to be that, by their own families).
3. therefore the defence of slavery is by analogy as worthless and repugnant as the defence outlined in para 1.
Are we clear now?
Except absolutely no one was defending slavery or excusing anyone. Indeed the comments from Kle4, Sean and myself were all crictical of the fact that people want to look at one section of the slave trade and say it was super bad and use that as an excuse to ignore the part of their own country/vested interest.
You have created a truly weird and irrelevant straw man to attack something that was not even being defended.
You are just wrong.
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
bib 1. is exactly my "Child brothels have existed throughout history", bib 2. is exactly my "you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place." I accept that the usual "the Arabs were at it too" does not crop up there, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad. So how can you say, straw man?
I note you very carefuly did not highlight the rest of that sentence.
I appreciate I have a tendency toward longer sentences - often interspersed with hyphens (or parentheticals) - but I would like to think most of the time people do get to the end of them, even if they then decide not to bother with the following sentence.
Suppose the Tories scrap IHT. And win a small majority as a result. What happens next? More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally. Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
More happiness for the heirs of those with large estates certainly
Suppose the Tories scrap IHT. And win a small majority as a result. What happens next? More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally. Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
More happiness for the heirs of those with large estates certainly
Heirs of large estates are probably all Just Stop Oil trust funders thesedays, it may not be worth anything politically to make them even richer.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I was being flippant.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
You're probably right.
I suspect, deep down, they know, or rather the current incarnation of Conservatives know, once they lose power they will never get it back. I'm NOT saying it's the end for the Conservative Party - far from it - but this manifestation of Conservative thinking is intellectually bankrupt and exhausted and we deserve the opportunity to put it out of our misery.
Of course they would get it back, as soon as people are fed up of the Labour government
I suppose everyone plays soccer and basketball instead?
In some mitigation for West Indies, the pitch was clearly conducive to spin - Ashwin took 12 wickets and Jadeja took 5 - and it seems that the best West Indies spinner was unwell for some of the match, and only bowled 16 of the 152.2 overs in the Indian innings.
But yes, they are at a low ebb. Didn't they recently fail to qualify for the next 50-over world cup after losing a match to Scotland?
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
I would hope 14 challenger tanks being given would not count as stripping the army of all its (tank) equipment, even in this day and age, likewise with out types of kit. I do wonder how many of those storm shadow missiles we sent, since we apparently did not have many to begin with.
I don't think anyone thinks the West should give Ukraine all our stuff, there is just disagreement on how much can be sent, how soon, what types of stuff, and how quickly it can be replaced when it is sent. It certainly gets more use there.
The americans in particular must have massive stockpiles of some stuff.
Ugh, just realised I said 'it's' when I meant 'its' - apologies.
To even discuss that there might be any sort of limit is considered giving succour to Putin here.
We should be able to produce more to replace what is sent. If we can't - after 500 days of the war - then it raises much more serious questions about our ability to sustain our defence, given the speed with which a full-scale war consumes equipment and ammunition.
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
I would hope 14 challenger tanks being given would not count as stripping the army of all its (tank) equipment, even in this day and age, likewise with out types of kit. I do wonder how many of those storm shadow missiles we sent, since we apparently did not have many to begin with.
I don't think anyone thinks the West should give Ukraine all our stuff, there is just disagreement on how much can be sent, how soon, what types of stuff, and how quickly it can be replaced when it is sent. It certainly gets more use there.
The americans in particular must have massive stockpiles of some stuff.
We gave Ukraine our AS-90s - which admittedly it was a wonder that the army's mechanics could get them moving from the accounts shared on here - and we're replacing them with brand new, and superior, Archer artillery systems from Sweden. For most European militaries the Ukraine War has been a fantastic opportunity to get rid of vast amounts of [nearly] obsolete kit and replace it with new. See also the announcement today (or yesterday) of the 100 BTR-60s being sent by Bulgaria, who are hoping to get Strykers from the US to replace them with.
I think the only exception to this was the Danish decision to give all of their relatively new Caesar artillery systems to Ukraine.
I'll confess to being one of those rubes who couldn't tell a tank from a self propelled artillery from a tank destroyer
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
I would hope 14 challenger tanks being given would not count as stripping the army of all its (tank) equipment, even in this day and age, likewise with out types of kit. I do wonder how many of those storm shadow missiles we sent, since we apparently did not have many to begin with.
I don't think anyone thinks the West should give Ukraine all our stuff, there is just disagreement on how much can be sent, how soon, what types of stuff, and how quickly it can be replaced when it is sent. It certainly gets more use there.
The americans in particular must have massive stockpiles of some stuff.
Ugh, just realised I said 'it's' when I meant 'its' - apologies.
To even discuss that there might be any sort of limit is considered giving succour to Putin here.
I think with the combined stocks of the West and purported defence capacities we should collectively be able to flood Ukraine with weaponry without exhausting ourselves, and thus limits for each individual nation are reasonable.
If that combined force cannot do that, that says something worrying about our defences!
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Excellent idea, inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular policies there is. A manifesto commitment to scrap it is the ultimate goodie the Tories can offer their core vote in the South and posher parts of London to get them out to vote and would also likely win back voters lost to Reform.
Having it as a manifesto pledge only means the government can focus on cutting inflation and restoring the public finances until election day. Yet if Sunak wins a surprise 1992 style re election nobody can claim he has no mandatc to scrap IHT.
Most likely it will save some bluewall seats rather than give a full 6th victory however
Suppose the Tories scrap IHT. And win a small majority as a result. What happens next? More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally. Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
More happiness for the heirs of those with large estates certainly
Heirs of large estates are probably all Just Stop Oil trust funders thesedays, it may not be worth anything politically to make them even richer.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Do you have a UK bank account?
Then use that.
Avoid Revolut like the plague.
I do but HSBC have silly rates.
It's the price we have to pay for confidence.
I’ve never used Revolut but lots of mates use it regularly and swear by it. Why are you so against it? (Genuine question, I’m considering it but interested about possible pitfalls)
Suppose the Tories scrap IHT. And win a small majority as a result. What happens next? More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally. Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
More happiness for the heirs of those with large estates certainly
Heirs of large estates are probably all Just Stop Oil trust funders thesedays, it may not be worth anything politically to make them even richer.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Do you have a UK bank account?
Then use that.
Avoid Revolut like the plague.
I do but HSBC have silly rates.
It's the price we have to pay for confidence.
I’ve never used Revolut but lots of mates use it regularly and swear by it. Why are you so against it? (Genuine question, I’m considering it but interested about possible pitfalls)
Not an FCSA member for (from what I've heard) multiple reasons Customer service is awful if you have problems
I use Revolut, for things like cost free payments into overseas banks it's cheap and easy but I wouldn't keep much money there - most of the time I keep £30 there and transfer more into the account if I need to.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Excellent idea, inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular policies there is. A manifesto commitment to scrap it is the ultimate goodie the Tories can offer their core vote in the South and posher parts of London to get them out to vote and would also likely win back voters lost to Reform.
Having it as a manifesto pledge only means the government can focus on cutting inflation and restoring the public finances until election day. Yet if Sunak wins a surprise 1992 style re election nobody can claim he has no mandatc to scrap IHT.
Most likely it will save some bluewall seats rather than give a full 6th victory however
How do you pay for it?
Oh and what do you do with your historic sixth victory?
Jesus, there's a lot of loseroid widdler waving here tonight.
This white wine I'm drinking BTW from Tesco is total piss. I wish I was happy all the time like @Leon and all the other mega-succeeders here. Guys and occasional gals who selflessly devote their time to their monitor screens.
@Leon has told us all that he has on occasions suffered from depression and the lockdown was tough on him and I'm sure all of us have our flaws and our moments just as everyone does. Nobody is happy all the time. That probably didn't help and was probably only slightly better than saying cheer up. Hope it helped. Hope I didn't total misinterpret your post.
I am +1hr vs UK and have been sharing musical cues and other explanation with my brother as we both try and process our response to the death of our dad last month.
Lets put it this way. A bottle of whisky and tying it on will be required to banish this particular demon.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Do you have a UK bank account?
Then use that.
Avoid Revolut like the plague.
I do but HSBC have silly rates.
It's the price we have to pay for confidence.
I’ve never used Revolut but lots of mates use it regularly and swear by it. Why are you so against it? (Genuine question, I’m considering it but interested about possible pitfalls)
I've used Revolut for years for moving money between Sterling and Euros, and other foreign currencies when further afield. Must have saved a fortune compared to the ridiculous rates and charges Nationwide would have levied.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Excellent idea, inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular policies there is. A manifesto commitment to scrap it is the ultimate goodie the Tories can offer their core vote in the South and posher parts of London to get them out to vote and would also likely win back voters lost to Reform.
Having it as a manifesto pledge only means the government can focus on cutting inflation and restoring the public finances until election day. Yet if Sunak wins a surprise 1992 style re election nobody can claim he has no mandatc to scrap IHT.
Most likely it will save some bluewall seats rather than give a full 6th victory however
How do you pay for it?
Oh and what do you do with your historic sixth victory?
Well there might have to be some further cuts but if it was a manifesto commitment to scrap IHT then he would have a mandate for it if he won a 6th Tory victory in a row
Does anyone here understand what's going on in the Prigozhin and Wagner story right now? Because I don't. Putin's recent statements must surely have been aimed at one or more specific audience segments, but I've no idea which ones. What do we know? Prigozhin is not visibly in jail or exile. Shoigu and Gerasimov have not visibly left office. Popov is out. Schrodinger's kitty seems still inside the box. Let's hope one result of the affair is NOT that Belarus enters the war.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Do you have a UK bank account?
Then use that.
Avoid Revolut like the plague.
I do but HSBC have silly rates.
It's the price we have to pay for confidence.
I’ve never used Revolut but lots of mates use it regularly and swear by it. Why are you so against it? (Genuine question, I’m considering it but interested about possible pitfalls)
Not an FCSA member for (from what I've heard) multiple reasons Customer service is awful if you have problems
I use Revolut, for things like cost free payments into overseas banks it's cheap and easy but I wouldn't keep much money there - most of the time I keep £30 there and transfer more into the account if I need to.
Ah, in the EU they're covered by the Lithuanian deposit guarantee scheme.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Excellent idea, inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular policies there is. A manifesto commitment to scrap it is the ultimate goodie the Tories can offer their core vote in the South and posher parts of London to get them out to vote and would also likely win back voters lost to Reform.
Having it as a manifesto pledge only means the government can focus on cutting inflation and restoring the public finances until election day. Yet if Sunak wins a surprise 1992 style re election nobody can claim he has no mandatc to scrap IHT.
Most likely it will save some bluewall seats rather than give a full 6th victory however
How do you pay for it?
Oh and what do you do with your historic sixth victory?
Well there might have to be some further cuts but if it was a manifesto commitment to scrap IHT then he would have a mandate for it if he won a 6th Tory victory in a row
Same as if it was only a 1st victory. Having a mandate for it doesn't mean he'd do it, though. But I agree it's a powerful campaign promise. It's also the kind of policy about which some poll respondents would say hey, no, it's not important to them and they'll vote Lab or LD anyway, and then when the election comes they go and vote Tory. "Look after Number One" resonates with a lot of people.
Labour need to drive the news agenda somehow, but how? The idea that they've got the election in the bag is absurd.
Tank. Armoured vehicle (usually tracked) intended to transport a large gun to the front lines. Provides a physical object for infantry to hide behind and a large gun to demolish buildings and other tanks up close. Does not carry infantry internally. Medium speed, heavy armour.
Self-propelled gun. Armoured vehicle (usually tracked) intended to transport a large gun to about five miles behind the front lines. Provides a large gun to demolish buildings and other tanks at a distance. Does not carry infantry internally. Medium speed, medium armour.
Tank destroyer. Armoured vehicle (usually tracked) intended to transport a large gun to the front lines. Provides a large gun to demolish other tanks up close. Does not carry infantry internally. Fast speed, medium armour.
Infantry fighting vehicle. Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a medium gun and infantry to the front lines. Provides infantry to fight other infantry and a medium gun to support them. Does carry infantry internally. Medium speed, medium armour.
Armoured personnel carrier. Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a light gun/machine gun and infantry to the front lines. Provides infantry to fight other infantry and light gun/machine gun to support them. Does carry infantry internally. Medium speed, light armour.
Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle. Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a man with binoculars and a radio and a light gun to the front lines. Provides data to the self-propelled guns to do their job. Fires into bushes to flush out the enemy ("combat reconnaissance") and fights until it can run away. Does not carry infantry internally. Fast speed, light armour.
Reconnaissance Vehicle. Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a man with binoculars and a radio and a light gun to the front lines. Provides data to the self-propelled guns to do their job. Hides behind bushes and runs away if detected. Does not carry infantry internally. Fast speed, light armour.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Excellent idea, inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular policies there is. A manifesto commitment to scrap it is the ultimate goodie the Tories can offer their core vote in the South and posher parts of London to get them out to vote and would also likely win back voters lost to Reform.
Having it as a manifesto pledge only means the government can focus on cutting inflation and restoring the public finances until election day. Yet if Sunak wins a surprise 1992 style re election nobody can claim he has no mandatc to scrap IHT.
Most likely it will save some bluewall seats rather than give a full 6th victory however
How do you pay for it?
Oh and what do you do with your historic sixth victory?
Well there might have to be some further cuts but if it was a manifesto commitment to scrap IHT then he would have a mandate for it if he won a 6th Tory victory in a row
But the nation is shot to s***. You can't afford tax cuts for millionaires. You tried that before, last September. But let's say you succeed, the unthinkable would have to be thought. Cuts wouldn't just be trimming the branches it would be taking a big f***-off axe to the trunk of national institutions..
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
To be fair, our only real conventional military threat is Russia.
While the attrition in Ukraine is costing us some equipment, the Russian bear is thoroughly defanged and declawed. They aren't going to be invading anyone else any time soon. Real value for money from our DoD.
Female candidates battle to be Donald Trump’s running mate ... Two of the top three candidates — Marjorie Taylor Greene and Elise Stefanik — are fiercely loyal congresswomen and the third, Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, has backed several right-wing measures — to the delight of Trump’s Maga (Make America Great Again) base. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-2024-female-women-candidates-ggwhmgxk2 (£££)
I know we're not meant to be concerned about the British army being stripped of all it's equipment so it can be chucked at Ukraine, but it looks to me like Ben emptied Mother Hubbard's cupboard for NATO brownie points, and only now he's been rejected he's starting to get catty and tell Zelensky it's not Amazon, and now threatening to walk out.
To be fair, our only real conventional military threat is Russia.
While the attrition in Ukraine is costing us some equipment, the Russian bear is thoroughly defanged and declawed. They aren't going to be invading anyone else any time soon. Real value for money from our DoD.
Russia was not going to invade Britain anyway. Its naval sabotage capability remains intact, ready to disrupt internet and telecommunications traffic, as well as electricity from our offshore windfarms and continental Europe.
Comments
But I have answered every question of yours even as you continue to imply I mean the opposite of what I say . How about you finally answer the question of why it is you appear to be insisting that knowing about other bad things, and thus mentioning them, is wrong?
As for irrational, you bolded a quote of mine ignoring the remainder of a sentence which made the opposite point to which you claimed it did, and you complained about me mentioning african slavery in a post which was a response to a post about african slavery, asking why I had brought up african slavery - yet I am being irrational? If you ignore the parts of what I write that go against what you think i was saying, of course it sound weird!
We've rabbited on for ages now and are no doubt boring everyone, but the fundamental problem seems to be you believe I am seeking to defend something, and even though I say I am not, you obviously think I am lying about that, so I'm not sure we're getting much more illumination from this.
On that, perhaps, we can agree?
This white wine I'm drinking BTW from Tesco is total piss. I wish I was happy all the time like @Leon and all the other mega-succeeders here. Guys and occasional gals who selflessly devote their time to their monitor screens.
It just blows me away, this "The Tories can't recover from such polling" groupthink here. I detest the Tories much more than most people do, but that's not the sensible way to look at it. Assume the campaign will be run by people with at least two brain cells to rub together. Then ask what they've got in their armoury and whether they'll get traction. Or, of course, don't, and lose your money on the betting exchanges. No skin off my nose. Anyone who thinks Starmer and Labour can just coast to victory is an idiot.
"without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible."
Such selective quoting is frankly ignorant and stupid and just makes it look like you are looking for an argument where none exists.
It is sad you have nothing better to do on a Friday night than try and find fault where none exists.
Sits back and awaits brickbats.
I don't think anyone thinks the West should give Ukraine all our stuff, there is just disagreement on how much can be sent, how soon, what types of stuff, and how quickly it can be replaced when it is sent. It certainly gets more use there.
The americans in particular must have massive stockpiles of some stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1215998
I suppose everyone plays soccer and basketball instead?
* I don't know if there's an annual threshold below which any gift does not count towards your lifetime allowance, say, which would ameliorate that, but anyway.
To even discuss that there might be any sort of limit is considered giving succour to Putin here.
I think the only exception to this was the Danish decision to give all of their relatively new Caesar artillery systems to Ukraine.
But yes, they are at a low ebb. Didn't they recently fail to qualify for the next 50-over world cup after losing a match to Scotland?
If that combined force cannot do that, that says something worrying about our defences!
Having it as a manifesto pledge only means the government can focus on cutting inflation and restoring the public finances until election day. Yet if Sunak wins a surprise 1992 style re election nobody can claim he has no mandatc to scrap IHT.
Most likely it will save some bluewall seats rather than give a full 6th victory however
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66207576
Customer service is awful if you have problems
I use Revolut, for things like cost free payments into overseas banks it's cheap and easy but I wouldn't keep much money there - most of the time I keep £30 there and transfer more into the account if I need to.
Oh and what do you do with your historic sixth victory?
Lets put it this way. A bottle of whisky and tying it on will be required to banish this particular demon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTI8DmfGXXs
Labour need to drive the news agenda somehow, but how? The idea that they've got the election in the bag is absurd.
Tank.
Armoured vehicle (usually tracked) intended to transport a large gun to the front lines. Provides a physical object for infantry to hide behind and a large gun to demolish buildings and other tanks up close. Does not carry infantry internally. Medium speed, heavy armour.
Self-propelled gun.
Armoured vehicle (usually tracked) intended to transport a large gun to about five miles behind the front lines. Provides a large gun to demolish buildings and other tanks at a distance. Does not carry infantry internally. Medium speed, medium armour.
Tank destroyer.
Armoured vehicle (usually tracked) intended to transport a large gun to the front lines. Provides a large gun to demolish other tanks up close. Does not carry infantry internally. Fast speed, medium armour.
Infantry fighting vehicle.
Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a medium gun and infantry to the front lines. Provides infantry to fight other infantry and a medium gun to support them. Does carry infantry internally. Medium speed, medium armour.
Armoured personnel carrier.
Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a light gun/machine gun and infantry to the front lines. Provides infantry to fight other infantry and light gun/machine gun to support them. Does carry infantry internally. Medium speed, light armour.
Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle.
Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a man with binoculars and a radio and a light gun to the front lines. Provides data to the self-propelled guns to do their job. Fires into bushes to flush out the enemy ("combat reconnaissance") and fights until it can run away. Does not carry infantry internally. Fast speed, light armour.
Reconnaissance Vehicle.
Armoured vehicle (wheeled or tracked) intended to transport a man with binoculars and a radio and a light gun to the front lines. Provides data to the self-propelled guns to do their job. Hides behind bushes and runs away if detected. Does not carry infantry internally. Fast speed, light armour.
While the attrition in Ukraine is costing us some equipment, the Russian bear is thoroughly defanged and declawed. They aren't going to be invading anyone else any time soon. Real value for money from our DoD.
...
Two of the top three candidates — Marjorie Taylor Greene and Elise Stefanik — are fiercely loyal congresswomen and the third, Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, has backed several right-wing measures — to the delight of Trump’s Maga (Make America Great Again) base.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-2024-female-women-candidates-ggwhmgxk2 (£££)
http://www.hacer.org/latam/haiti’s-apocalypse-by-theodore-dalrymple/
https://lawliberty.org/the-distortions-of-woke-martyrdom/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MUX6nYUed0
Two and a half minutes of video from Unison.