Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any of my money via IHT
I think my prospects of becoming President of the Royal College has declined further.
You aspire to be a union boss?
No, the Royal Colleges are specifically banned from Trade Union activities, such as negotiating terms and conditions. That is the role of BMA, HCSA etc.
Apart from the RCN, of course, which should be renamed the National Union of Nursing Operatives and Allied Trades but which, for some reason, enjoys royal patronage in spite of being a trades union.
Not being a nurse rather rules me out of that one anyway.
(Though there are Christmas party pictures of me in Mrs Foxys uniform, for some revue show, I don't think this qualifies me...)
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
Some funeral company is putting out ads encouraging people to prepare for their funeral by talking to people about what they want to happen at their funeral. My wife has always said that she doesn't care. She says the funeral is for the living and not for the dead.
My grandfather requested Turkish belly dancing girls and "roll out the barrel" as music for his funeral.
Sadly my grandmother opted for a rather more Presbyterian do.
On her way. As I posted a week or so ago. One to watch for future Labour.
Katie White @KatieJWhite · 3h Completely humbled and honoured to have been selected by the wonderful @UKLabour members of the new #LeedsNorthWest constituency to be the Parliamentary candidate - in the seat where I grew up, as did my parents before me. Huge thank you for the support and trust 🙏🏼🌹💚
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Govts waste billions and billions. They dont need IHT. JUST Stop pissing our money up against the wall.
The other thing to watch this week is that the cost of that public borrowing is going to rise and rise for a long time yet.
There are several factors that are going to drive this. Firstly, most of the current debt was funded at ridiculously low interest rates over the last decade. As we are still in substantial deficit that debt will need to be rolled over but it will be refinanced at roughly 10x the cost of the current debt. As more and more of the cheap debt reaches maturity the proportion of tax revenues used for debt interest will climb and climb.
Secondly, a significant proportion of current debt is to the BoE and we don’t pay interest on it. As QE is unwound we will have to pay interest on more of it.
Thirdly, we are just not a great credit risk.
Add these together and the idea we have “headroom” for tax cuts is almost morally offensive.
Of course we are a “great credit risk”. A UK Gvt default is (almost) impossible. In the event we were defaulting, the world would have bigger problems.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Govts waste billions and billions. They dont need IHT. JUST Stop pissing our money up against the wall.
Ah, so it’s: 4. I’m so annoyed that the Tory party have funnelled a whole bunch of legitimate tax moolah to Baroness Mone’s collection of intimate adult toys/Yankee candle addiction that I am going to exact my revenge by ensuring my local primary school’s roof collapses.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Govts waste billions and billions. They dont need IHT. JUST Stop pissing our money up against the wall.
The more they give to poor people the less they can siphon off to the likes of Michelle and Dougie.
I forecast SKS Genocide Party beats the 32% but falls short of the highest Labour score this Millenium 40% in 2017
You are batting for a Labour defeat.
Presumably you are quite comfortable with the Tories squeezing the church-mouse poor and rewarding the super wealthy.
Blue Tories are about to announce tax cuts for the top 4% of society paid for by removing free medical care from the sick & disabled because they are unemployed. And L4%K on behalf of Red Tories Labour says the cuts to welfare don’t go far enough.
Presume you are quite comfortable with that.
My Party is campaigning for a wealth tax
They're meant to campaign to protect the environment. Not wibble on about tax policy.
I forecast SKS Genocide Party beats the 32% but falls short of the highest Labour score this Millenium 40% in 2017
You are batting for a Labour defeat.
Presumably you are quite comfortable with the Tories squeezing the church-mouse poor and rewarding the super wealthy.
Blue Tories are about to announce tax cuts for the top 4% of society paid for by removing free medical care from the sick & disabled because they are unemployed. And L4%K on behalf of Red Tories Labour says the cuts to welfare don’t go far enough.
Presume you are quite comfortable with that.
My Party is campaigning for a wealth tax
They're meant to campaign to protect the environment. Not wibble on about tax policy.
The environment is a sideshow for the greens. They’re half SWP, half shires NIMBY alliance.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Govts waste billions and billions. They dont need IHT. JUST Stop pissing our money up against the wall.
The more they give to poor people the less they can siphon off to the likes of Michelle and Dougie.
Super yachts aren't cheap you know.
They are if you write them off on expenses in the Cayman Isles.
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
Reminds me of 'Spending a year dead for tax reasons'. The silicon valley blood-boy utopia.
I forecast SKS Genocide Party beats the 32% but falls short of the highest Labour score this Millenium 40% in 2017
You are batting for a Labour defeat.
Presumably you are quite comfortable with the Tories squeezing the church-mouse poor and rewarding the super wealthy.
Blue Tories are about to announce tax cuts for the top 4% of society paid for by removing free medical care from the sick & disabled because they are unemployed. And L4%K on behalf of Red Tories Labour says the cuts to welfare don’t go far enough.
Presume you are quite comfortable with that.
My Party is campaigning for a wealth tax
They're meant to campaign to protect the environment. Not wibble on about tax policy.
They could do both, but I never really get the impression they are that interested in Green issues beyond the branding - other parties are just as capable of being Green after all, so it feels like their heart is not in it, in terms of defining why they are different to the rest. If you care most about environmental issues there's lots of options.
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
Did you actually read the Time article? It seemed a reasonably cogent piece to me.
Now, Hamas are a bunch of b@stards who need wiping off the face of the earth, but achieving that at the expense of 20,000, 200,000 or 2 million Gazans, which I believe Bibi is comfortable with, what would you call that?
Now, I'm not a business executive or board member, but saying (in unusually strong corporate speak) that you could not trust they guy so he had to go, and then inviting him back, would seemingly make them look like the dumbest people alive.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Govts waste billions and billions. They dont need IHT. JUST Stop pissing our money up against the wall.
Govt have to tax to provide services (whether they waste it or not is another matter) and they do that by taxing anything they can eg employment, savings, buying houses, gambling, spending, particularly on inelastic demand items like alcohol, cigarettes, petrol, etc. Not sure why you think dying should be exempt.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Govts waste billions and billions. They dont need IHT. JUST Stop pissing our money up against the wall.
Govt have to tax to provide services (whether they waste it or not is another matter) and they do that by taxing anything they can eg employment, savings, buying houses, gambling, spending, particularly on inelastic demand items like alcohol, cigarettes, petrol, etc. Not sure why you think dying should be exempt.
Dying is just a cheap way of avoiding paying further taxes in the future, of course the government wants to disincentivise it by taxing it and get their cut from the event at the same time.
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
Did you actually read the Time article? It seemed a reasonably cogent piece to me.
Now, Hamas are a bunch of b@stards who need wiping off the face of the earth, but achieving that at the expense of 20,000, 200,000 or 2 million Gazans, which I believe Bibi is comfortable with , what would you call that?
There have been 11,000 deaths according to the Hamas controlled authorities. It is amazing how everyone assumes they are all civilians as if no Hamas combatants have been killed. I find that unbelievable. So we can likely say that thousands of Gazan civilians have been killed including a great many children. A tragedy. But that does not make it genocide. A deliberate attempt to exterminate a race religious group etc. That is what are Hamas are in the business of doing. As they said they would if they could repeat October 7th again and again.
Sunday Times saying Hunt is now onto income tax cuts.
They are all over the bloody place.
Why not just STFU and just deliver the speech on Wednesday?
I can understand that today's endless news and media cycle makes keeping schtum about things difficult, everyone will be speculating anyway, and despite the performative whines of Speakers everyone knows that policy announcements will get made out of the Commons, or as good as made with all the leaks, but for the life of me in recent years I cannot figure out the strategy behind any of it. There's kite flying, then there's just dicking people about.
Surely the key thing for the Tories is to get over to the public the fact that there IS more headroom. Cutting the rate of inheritance tax strikes me as quite ludicrous. I could just about understand raising the threshold but cutting the rate? That's just a massive break to very wealthy people on the whole. Are they unhappy that too many rich people aren't voting for them?
The idea that the country needs to make it easier for the generally already wealthy to pass on wealth stoking inequality tells you everything about how politically and economically inept the Tory Party now is. Even if you are a hard right type of person don't vote for this shower, they are useless, and the public will almost certainly give them a kicking next year that is long overdue.
It's not a case of making it easier, it's a case of reducing an unfair tax on the departed. In reality it should be removed altogether.
Being dead is like being stupid. It's only a problem for other people.
The dead no longer care about money.
They do up to the moment they pop their clogs. That's why so many carefully plan to avoid this iniquitous tax. My church will benefit as a result of my careful tax planning. I am not rich by any means but The Govt isn't getting any if my money via IHT
Eh?!
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements: 1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn. 2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race. 3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Govts waste billions and billions. They dont need IHT. JUST Stop pissing our money up against the wall.
Govt have to tax to provide services (whether they waste it or not is another matter) and they do that by taxing anything they can eg employment, savings, buying houses, gambling, spending, particularly on inelastic demand items like alcohol, cigarettes, petrol, etc. Not sure why you think dying should be exempt.
Life's two guarantees death and taxes, so why not combine them?
As someone who has benefitted from a substantial inheritance I can confirm the iniquitous nature of the benefit. I lifted not a finger to earn it. Although I suppose I can claim its unfairness as "I'm already on the bus, conductor ring the bell". Nonetheless it is grossly unfair.
Oh and I invested in a specialist lawyer in order to ensure Boris Johnson's Government got not a penny from me.
Still waiting for evidence of the so called command centre under the Al Shifa hospital . Still waiting for why the west are saying zip about the fact the so called areas that the IDF said were safe are now going to be bombed . Where are all these people supposed to go to . 2 million are now being forced into an ever smaller area .
The IDF seem to be out of control and doing whatever they like . It was always sadly going to end this way .
The poor hostages have been forgotten and many are likely to have been killed by IDF bombing .
Now, I'm not a business executive or board member, but saying (in unusually strong corporate speak) that you could not trust they guy so he had to go, and then inviting him back, would seemingly make them look like the dumbest people alive.
Are the scriptwriters the same people who write Emmerdale story lines?
Many Americans would prefer not to think about the costs of COVID. Which continue. (If I recall correctly, although by far most of the dead were elderly, no fewer than 200K were working age adults. Which can't have helped our productivity.)
And then there are monetary consequences like this one: 'EVERETT, Wash. — More than 1,300 nurses at Providence Regional Medical Center Everett (PRMCE) went on strike Tuesday morning over unfair labor practices at the hospital.' (Everett is just north of Seattle)
The hospital claims to have made a generous offer: '"In a statement, PRMCE said it was “extremely disappointed that UFCW has rejected our contract proposal and chosen to strike. An average full-time PRMCE nurse currently earns a base salary of $121,000 per year — and work three 12-hour shifts a week.”'
I see the nurses' disatisfaction as -- mostly -- caused by the stress of COVID. (There is also the continuing problem in this area of outrageously high prices for housing.)
(I think it likely that many, perhaps most, in other nations would also prefer not to think about the continuing costs of COVID.)
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
Did you actually read the Time article? It seemed a reasonably cogent piece to me.
Now, Hamas are a bunch of b@stards who need wiping off the face of the earth, but achieving that at the expense of 20,000, 200,000 or 2 million Gazans, which I believe Bibi is comfortable with , what would you call that?
There have been 11,000 deaths according to the Hamas controlled authorities. It is amazing how everyone assumes they are all civilians as if no Hamas combatants have been killed. I find that unbelievable. So we can likely say that thousands of Gazan civilians have been killed including a great many children. A tragedy. But that does not make it genocide. A deliberate attempt to exterminate a race religious group etc. That is what are Hamas are in the business of doing. As they said they would if they could repeat October 7th again and again.
So with a wave of the hand you are allowing Netanyahu to fill his boots. Now I believe Israel have every right to hunt down Hamas. But Netanyahu isn't hunting them down. He will kill them all (except for those living in luxury penthouses in Doha) at the expense of significant numbers of Gazan civilians and I suspect Israeli hostages.
So Hamas are liars. So is Bibi. But look with your own eyes at the devastation. Do you think it likely, casualties have been minimised?
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
The article does a good job of identifying the problems oin the way it's used. I think of "a deliberate attempt to kill out an entire ethnic group", which is a pretty narrow definition - it covers the Holocaust and the Hutus vs Tutsis and probably not much else. I think that's how most people use it.
Because it's so emotive, people who are the victims of aggression (Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Tibet, etc.) try to extend it to cover their case as well, and it's even sometimes used to cover suppression of minority culture without necessarily killing anyone - these are all horrid but IMO not genocide. As the article says, though, there's a danger that we get hung up on the semantics and it distracts from simply being against mass killing of non-combatants.
Still waiting for evidence of the so called command centre under the Al Shifa hospital . Still waiting for why the west are saying zip about the fact the so called areas that the IDF said were safe are now going to be bombed . Where are all these people supposed to go to . 2 million are now being forced into an ever smaller area .
The IDF seem to be out of control and doing whatever they like . It was always sadly going to end this way .
The poor hostages have been forgotten and many are likely to have been killed by IDF bombing .
Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu battles on all fronts, amid growing pressure to free hostages
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
Did you actually read the Time article? It seemed a reasonably cogent piece to me.
Now, Hamas are a bunch of b@stards who need wiping off the face of the earth, but achieving that at the expense of 20,000, 200,000 or 2 million Gazans, which I believe Bibi is comfortable with , what would you call that?
There have been 11,000 deaths according to the Hamas controlled authorities. It is amazing how everyone assumes they are all civilians as if no Hamas combatants have been killed. I find that unbelievable. So we can likely say that thousands of Gazan civilians have been killed including a great many children. A tragedy. But that does not make it genocide. A deliberate attempt to exterminate a race religious group etc. That is what are Hamas are in the business of doing. As they said they would if they could repeat October 7th again and again.
So with a wave of the hand you are allowing Netanyahu to fill his boots. Now I believe Israel have every right to hunt down Hamas. But Netanyahu isn't hunting them down. He will kill them all (except for those living in luxury penthouses in Doha) at the expense of significant numbers of Gazan civilians and I suspect Israeli hostages.
So Hamas are liars. So is Bibi. But look with your own eyes at the devastation. Do you think it likely, casualties have been minimised?
The rest of the world is free to come up with a plan for dealing with "those living in luxury penthouses penthouses in Doha", as they have been for the past couple decades. Given that they've failed to do so - and still seem to have no plan to do anything at all - I am struggling to understand on what basis anyone can be so outraged, given that I think we agree the billionaire absentee leaders are the main problem here.
Also, please show your working for your estimate of the number of casualties that would've resulted if they had been "minimised". The US had killed several thousand Iraqi civilians by a roughly comparable point of their invasion in 2003, and they were operating in a much less dense area, and with far easier distinctions between combatants and non-combatants.
Still waiting for evidence of the so called command centre under the Al Shifa hospital . Still waiting for why the west are saying zip about the fact the so called areas that the IDF said were safe are now going to be bombed . Where are all these people supposed to go to . 2 million are now being forced into an ever smaller area .
The IDF seem to be out of control and doing whatever they like . It was always sadly going to end this way .
The poor hostages have been forgotten and many are likely to have been killed by IDF bombing .
Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu battles on all fronts, amid growing pressure to free hostages
What’s he got to lose by releasing a load of prisoners for the hostages . The IDF can then renew blowing every building up and wiping out most of the prisoners !
Are we really to believe that Hamas fighters were stationed in nearly every building in northern Gaza and this warranted that level of destruction. How exactly would Israel have known that , do they have some undercover agent or someone giving them info in nearly every building . No I don’t think so. The plan was always to make northern Gaza a wasteland and annex it or make it effectively un-inhabitable . So job done there .
Conscious decisions were also made to effectively starve the population and have people living in the most horrific of conditions.
If they had wanted to they could have allowed much more aid in , they chose not to .
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
The article does a good job of identifying the problems oin the way it's used. I think of "a deliberate attempt to kill out an entire ethnic group", which is a pretty narrow definition - it covers the Holocaust and the Hutus vs Tutsis and probably not much else. I think that's how most people use it.
Because it's so emotive, people who are the victims of aggression (Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Tibet, etc.) try to extend it to cover their case as well, and it's even sometimes used to cover suppression of minority culture without necessarily killing anyone - these are all horrid but IMO not genocide. As the article says, though, there's a danger that we get hung up on the semantics and it distracts from simply being against mass killing of non-combatants.
Something I've seen on twitter, which I think you would be sympathetic to, is that Labour MPs are facing a lot of hostility for not calling for a ceasefire. This is undoubtedly exacerbated by the use of the term 'genocide' in Gaza. Politically minded social scientists try to redefine genocide as a useful means of provoking outrage against the establishment and Labour MPs have to deal with the consequences.
That article, frankly, was a load of waffle. There is a legal definition of genocide. However it would appear that some social scientists, presumably sociologists, don't like that definition because they want to be able to us the term more loosely and so redefine it. Redefine it as what exactly? Nothing explicit so far as I can see. Just muddying the waters in the traditional fashion of radical left wing 'thinkers' so they can go after colonial/western/oppressor groups more easily.
The article does a good job of identifying the problems oin the way it's used. I think of "a deliberate attempt to kill out an entire ethnic group", which is a pretty narrow definition - it covers the Holocaust and the Hutus vs Tutsis and probably not much else. I think that's how most people use it.
Because it's so emotive, people who are the victims of aggression (Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Tibet, etc.) try to extend it to cover their case as well, and it's even sometimes used to cover suppression of minority culture without necessarily killing anyone - these are all horrid but IMO not genocide. As the article says, though, there's a danger that we get hung up on the semantics and it distracts from simply being against mass killing of non-combatants.
Something I've seen on twitter, which I think you would be sympathetic to, is that Labour MPs are facing a lot of hostility for not calling for a ceasefire. This is undoubtedly exacerbated by the use of the term 'genocide' in Gaza. Politically minded social scientists try to redefine genocide as a useful means of provoking outrage against the establishment and Labour MPs have to deal with the consequences.
Yes, I agree. But the ambiguity of the word doesn't detract from the horror at what is going on. "Ceasefire" is ambiguous too, though - it's unlikely to be permanent unless at least the hostages are freed.
Sunday Times saying Hunt is now onto income tax cuts.
They are all over the bloody place.
Why not just STFU and just deliver the speech on Wednesday?
I can understand that today's endless news and media cycle makes keeping schtum about things difficult, everyone will be speculating anyway, and despite the performative whines of Speakers everyone knows that policy announcements will get made out of the Commons, or as good as made with all the leaks, but for the life of me in recent years I cannot figure out the strategy behind any of it. There's kite flying, then there's just dicking people about.
Nature abhors a vacuum, so if No. 10 and No.11 do not feed the media possible budget measures, then the media would invite various randoms to speculate about possible measures, or to advocate for their own policy priorities - we might even have a public debate! - and who knows where that might lead people.
Due to the briefing from No.10 and No. 11 the media speculation is focused on tax cuts of various sorts, being tough on "shirkers", and how well the government have managed the public finances so that there is more money than they previously expected.
These are much better debates to be had then, why is Britain spending so much on debt interest - and what could be done about it? Or, these are some great ideas for reforming the taxation of housing? Or, should pensioners pay National Insurance? Or, should the country spend a bit more money on repairing Britain's crumbling infrastructure? Or anyone of any number of other issues around taxation and spending that would reflect much more poorly on the government and its record in government.
Now, I'm not a business executive or board member, but saying (in unusually strong corporate speak) that you could not trust they guy so he had to go, and then inviting him back, would seemingly make them look like the dumbest people alive.
It's a cunning AI plan - way beyond our pitiful understanding.
'@Bob4Beckenham Serving Beckenham as its Member of Parliament for 13 years has been an honour and privilege. I am incredibly grateful to everyone who has given me this opportunity. However, it is time for a new candidate, so I will not be seeking re-election at the next election.' https://x.com/Bob4Beckenham/status/1725869259476042071?s=20
German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord 1878–1943
"...I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous..."
This sounds like a sort of terrible idea that is only being briefed for the sake of not doing it in an attempt to appear not mental. If this was for real who is it meant to help?
German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord 1878–1943
"...I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous..."
German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord 1878–1943
"...I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous..."
Interesting quote, that I hadn't heard/read before.
One of the Leons used to come up with something similar as a recommendation for Boris ("clever and lazy"), so when I saw the exact (possibly apocryphal, certainly attributed) quote I thought I'd post it here.
A few years back I applied for a role on some police supervision body. Got onto the shortlist. Was asked about social media profile so pointed to the articles I had written. Short list went to the Home Office. When it came back I was no longer on it. Not that I had any great expectations - this was during Dick's time in charge of the Met and the police were not keen on having anyone challenge them. The body was really jobs for retired policemen - one of the many "scratch my back etc" bodies that infest our public life.
And that's how it really works.
There's (still) a bit of a myth out there about public schools and the old school tie network. This died out about 30 years ago.
In fact, it really happens as you describe here - it doesn't matter what school you went to; it's how well connected you are in your public or professional life with the right people.
Some good news for Rishi this evening, tonight's Opinium poll puts the Tories on 185 seats, so more than the 165 seats Major's Tories got in 1997 and the 166 seats Hague's Tories got in 2001.
Comments
(Though there are Christmas party pictures of me in Mrs Foxys uniform, for some revue show, I don't think this qualifies me...)
Sadly my grandmother opted for a rather more Presbyterian do.
Katie White
@KatieJWhite
·
3h
Completely humbled and honoured to have been selected by the wonderful
@UKLabour
members of the new #LeedsNorthWest constituency to be the Parliamentary candidate - in the seat where I grew up, as did my parents before me. Huge thank you for the support and trust 🙏🏼🌹💚
https://twitter.com/KatieJWhite/status/1725942735234846886
I mean, I know we differ on much of our politics, but even accounting for that, I genuinely cannot fathom how you get to this belief.
Taken logically, it seems to mean one of the following statements:
1. All taxation is theft and I should be allowed to keep all the money I earn.
2. I should be permitted to entrench inequality by injecting a cash lump sum into my own family’s coffers just as they are feeling the squeeze (for many) of mortgages and kids. But another family down the road who happen not to have a wealthy parent have to muddle through with the ludicrous
cost of living, with crap public services to boot because I feel it is my right to suddenly allow my kids to go mortgage free and spend all day knitting Palestinian flags/bingeing on Farage in the jungle rather than having to scuttle along in the rat race.
3. I have no kids but would prefer the donkey sanctuary to have hand-woven merino wool donkey jackets/my church to have pink spangly bells rather than my neighbour to be able to get a GP appointment in the next five years.
Am I missing something?
Those views are not contradictory.
https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1725871695200657450
4. I’m so annoyed that the Tory party have funnelled a whole bunch of legitimate tax moolah to Baroness Mone’s collection of intimate adult toys/Yankee candle addiction that I am going to exact my revenge by ensuring my local primary school’s roof collapses.
I’m with you now. Thanks for the clarification.
They are all over the bloody place.
Why not just STFU and just deliver the speech on Wednesday?
Super yachts aren't cheap you know.
It's a bit shyte really!
@JohnRentoul
·
2h
Lord Sainsbury’s daughter gives Labour £1m
I'd have spent it on Leoneque holidays and flash cars.
with Sam Altman to return as CEO:
https://twitter.com/ethanCaballero/status/1726012588700430823
Now, Hamas are a bunch of b@stards who need wiping off the face of the earth, but achieving that at the expense of 20,000, 200,000 or 2 million Gazans, which I believe Bibi is comfortable with, what would you call that?
As someone who has benefitted from a substantial inheritance I can confirm the iniquitous nature of the benefit. I lifted not a finger to earn it. Although I suppose I can claim its unfairness as "I'm already on the bus, conductor ring the bell". Nonetheless it is grossly unfair.
Oh and I invested in a specialist lawyer in order to ensure Boris Johnson's Government got not a penny from me.
The IDF seem to be out of control and doing whatever they like . It was always sadly going to end this way .
The poor hostages have been forgotten and many are likely to have been killed by IDF bombing .
And then there are monetary consequences like this one:
'EVERETT, Wash. — More than 1,300 nurses at Providence Regional Medical Center Everett (PRMCE) went on strike Tuesday morning over unfair labor practices at the hospital.'
(Everett is just north of Seattle)
The hospital claims to have made a generous offer:
'"In a statement, PRMCE said it was “extremely disappointed that UFCW has rejected our contract proposal and chosen to strike. An average full-time PRMCE nurse currently earns a base salary of $121,000 per year — and work three 12-hour shifts a week.”'
They claim -- and the union has not contradicted them -- that they are offering an increase of more than 20 percent, over the next three years.
source; https://komonews.com/news/local/providence-everett-nurses-strike-unfair-labor-practices-ufcw-3000-regional-medical-center-prmce-health-and-safety-chronic-understaffing-bargaining
I see the nurses' disatisfaction as -- mostly -- caused by the stress of COVID. (There is also the continuing problem in this area of outrageously high prices for housing.)
(I think it likely that many, perhaps most, in other nations would also prefer not to think about the continuing costs of COVID.)
"North Wales: Four injured in dangerous dog attack"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67464124
So Hamas are liars. So is Bibi. But look with your own eyes at the devastation. Do you think it likely, casualties have been minimised?
Because it's so emotive, people who are the victims of aggression (Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Tibet, etc.) try to extend it to cover their case as well, and it's even sometimes used to cover suppression of minority culture without necessarily killing anyone - these are all horrid but IMO not genocide. As the article says, though, there's a danger that we get hung up on the semantics and it distracts from simply being against mass killing of non-combatants.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/18/world/netanyahu-hamas-hostages-israel/index.html
Also, please show your working for your estimate of the number of casualties that would've resulted if they had been "minimised". The US had killed several thousand Iraqi civilians by a roughly comparable point of their invasion in 2003, and they were operating in a much less dense area, and with far easier distinctions between combatants and non-combatants.
“You forgot the first rule of a fanatic. When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy."
Are we really to believe that Hamas fighters were stationed in nearly every building in northern Gaza and this warranted that level of destruction. How exactly would Israel have known that , do they have some undercover agent or someone giving them info in nearly every building . No I don’t think so. The plan was always to make northern Gaza a wasteland and annex it or make it effectively un-inhabitable . So job done there .
Conscious decisions were also made to effectively starve the population and have people living in the most horrific of conditions.
If they had wanted to they could have allowed much more aid in , they chose not to .
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/18/jeremy-corbyn-calls-hamas-terrorist-group-after-previous-demurral
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-67335952
Due to the briefing from No.10 and No. 11 the media speculation is focused on tax cuts of various sorts, being tough on "shirkers", and how well the government have managed the public finances so that there is more money than they previously expected.
These are much better debates to be had then, why is Britain spending so much on debt interest - and what could be done about it? Or, these are some great ideas for reforming the taxation of housing? Or, should pensioners pay National Insurance? Or, should the country spend a bit more money on repairing Britain's crumbling infrastructure? Or anyone of any number of other issues around taxation and spending that would reflect much more poorly on the government and its record in government.
Panorama’s London-based Richard Bilton took flights to Dubai, Alaska, California and Berlin for a programme on climate change"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/bbc-hypocrisy-row-air-miles-emissions/
Serving Beckenham as its Member of Parliament for 13 years has been an honour and privilege. I am incredibly grateful to everyone who has given me this opportunity. However, it is time for a new candidate, so I will not be seeking re-election at the next election.'
https://x.com/Bob4Beckenham/status/1725869259476042071?s=20
The Lithuanian for "Donald Trump" is "Donaldas Trampas".
https://www.google.com/translate
"...I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous..."
attributed, 1933; possibly apocryphal
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00012327
Who’s up for the F1?
NEW THREAD
There's (still) a bit of a myth out there about public schools and the old school tie network. This died out about 30 years ago.
In fact, it really happens as you describe here - it doesn't matter what school you went to; it's how well connected you are in your public or professional life with the right people.