Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Understanding the rise of Kamala Harris – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,269
    edited August 2
    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Those numbers are wrong, the actual figures are here as I already posted. With Starmer already on -9% with Yougov today anyway whoever is Tory leader is likely to have an easier time than Hague had against Blair after the 1997 defeat

    Priti Patel: ✅16% / ❌67%
    James Cleverly: ✅15% / ❌41%
    Tom Tugendhat: ✅13% / ❌24%
    Kemi Badenoch: ✅11% / ❌37%
    Robert Jenrick: ✅8% / ❌27%
    Mel Stride: ✅4% / ❌18%
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819299524847804694
  • Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Southport latest: Fears riots could erupt in a dozen cities tonight"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/02/southport-attack-latest-axel-rudakubana-riots/

    This rubbing the Right's nose in diversity is going well

    Some pissed up, coked up thugs doing what they have been doing for decades is just a long-established aspect of indigenous British culture reasserting itself once more, surely.

    There certainly is some of that, but from the TV pictures I have seen the far right types dont have the numbers that are filling the screen. They have nowhere near that many people

    It's all very recognisable - the alpha leaders and their slightly less alpha followers, drinking and snorting and then getting violent: mods and rockers; punks and skins; football hooliganism etc etc.

    Tommy Robinson was a leading light in the MIGS, Luton towns so-called "firm", the EDL was born from soccer hooligans.

    Many people who go to these things are not bothered with politics and labels of right or left. They just like a piss up and a ruck and in having a row with Coppers they are simply reliving the time before football hooliganism died off due to everyone being loved up on Acid during the Acid house time.
    And football grounds being festooned with CCTV cameras so they couldn't get away with it if they evaded capture in the act.
  • Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Piccadilly Line trains are finally going to be replaced next year after being in service for 50 years.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/piccadilly-line-upgrade

    Why? Is Island Line needing new trains?
    Unfortuately the answer to that one appears to be Yes, already.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Piccadilly Line trains are finally going to be replaced next year after being in service for 50 years.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/piccadilly-line-upgrade

    Presumably going to Yorkshire for the *next* 50 years? :smile:
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,874
    If the proposed reform of Council Tax goes ahead, it would reduce the demand for home improvements and extensions, and hopefully also the surfeit of property porn TV programmes.

    However, the armies of small builders could then be better employed building new houses in small estates, gap fills, etc.
  • Andy_JS said:

    viewcode said:

    Tres said:

    My friend's grandfather has decided to skip Friday prayers at his mosque today as he doesn't feel safe. Meanwhile Elon Musk is retweeting Tommy Robinson.

    Before mass social media, we could live in the belief that most people in the world were decent people who liked us. Now that illusion has been stripped away. Whatever the plusses or minuses of social media, I don't think it's made us happy.
    Only a small minority of people use social media to be rude to others.
    Not on here..
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Another sitting down Gold :)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,793

    Phil said:

    Tres said:

    My friend's grandfather has decided to skip Friday prayers at his mosque today as he doesn't feel safe. Meanwhile Elon Musk is retweeting Tommy Robinson.

    What is it with Musk? I'm full of admiration for his business and technological achievements, but he can be such a dick.
    Ive just had a look at his last 3 days post and Musk is tweeting about Transgender, Venezuala where he seems to have challenged the president to a duel and various techhie things. No Yaxley-Lennon though.

    So is this fake news?
    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1819062565395439767



    If Trump loses then I give it a year before Musk follows in Henry Ford’s footsteps & sets up his own weird quasi-fascist political party that will crash & burn to the great amusement of everyone else.
    At the risk of diverting the conversation into something serious

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-launches-new-clamp-down-on-criminal-and-violent-disorder

    "It will also consider how we can deploy facial recognition technology, which is already used by some forces, more widely across the country. This will mean criminals can be targeted, found and brought to justice quickly."

    There are serious concerns about using such technology - especially in relation to minority groups.

    Hence - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/usa-nypd-black-lives-matter-protests-surveilliance/
    https://aulawreview.org/blog/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

    etc
    In the 20th century, the idea that the state could track your individual position from moment to moment with a camera constantly focussed on you would have been horrifying. In the 2020s it's not even passionately discussed
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,793
    Andy_JS said:

    viewcode said:

    Tres said:

    My friend's grandfather has decided to skip Friday prayers at his mosque today as he doesn't feel safe. Meanwhile Elon Musk is retweeting Tommy Robinson.

    Before mass social media, we could live in the belief that most people in the world were decent people who liked us. Now that illusion has been stripped away. Whatever the plusses or minuses of social media, I don't think it's made us happy.
    Only a small minority of people use social media to be rude to others.
    There are 8 billion people on the planet. A "small minority" is more than enough.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,166
    edited August 2
    O/T

    Cricket is a sport where men and women can play against each other without it being too one-sided. For example this is the England women's team playing against the Royal Air Force senior team in 2012.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ21w_jGI78
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,424
    edited August 2
    Scott_xP said:

    @YouGov

    Among 2024 Tory voters there are two stand out leadership contestants: James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat

    Net favourability ratings for...
    James Cleverly: +16
    Tom Tugendhat: +15
    Robert Jenrick: +8
    Kemi Badenoch: +4
    Mel Stride: -8
    Priti Patel: -11

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819299527381176628

    Not really a surprise with Tory voters reduced to Traditionalists like BigG.

    The silver lining for the Tories might be that some of their more radical members have switched to Reform, leaving a gap for the electable candidates. OTOH, BigG hasn't rejoined so the net effect might be zero.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891

    MattW said:

    Meanwhile, US National debt up from $35 Trillion to $35.1 Trillion.

    £100 billion in three days.

    (source - national debt tweets)

    At this point last year: $32.6 trillion.
    https://x.com/NationalDebt/status/1686471852783239168

    So 7% year on year before inflation. I have no idea whether that is OK or a disaster,

    You want debt rising less than nominal GDP growth to have debt-to-GDP falling.

    Nominal GDP growth in the USA was 5.8% in the year to the end of Q2 2024.

    So its bad. Debt is rising faster than GDP.

    American growth has been picking up, but inflation has been falling (which is bad for this), so I doubt the pictures improved overall since.
    On track to hit 1 quadrillion dollars in 2068 by my calculations.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,269
    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @YouGov

    Among 2024 Tory voters there are two stand out leadership contestants: James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat

    Net favourability ratings for...
    James Cleverly: +16
    Tom Tugendhat: +15
    Robert Jenrick: +8
    Kemi Badenoch: +4
    Mel Stride: -8
    Priti Patel: -11

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819299527381176628

    Not really a surprise with Tory voters reduced to Traditionalists like BigG.

    The silver lining for the Tories might be that some of their more radical members have switched to Reform, leaving a gap for the electable candidates. OTOH, BigG hasn't rejoined so the net effect might be zero.
    Gauke has rejoined
    https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/29/david-gauke-why-i-have-rejoined-the-conservative-party/
  • MisterBedfordshireMisterBedfordshire Posts: 2,252
    edited August 2
    Pulpstar said:

    MattW said:

    Meanwhile, US National debt up from $35 Trillion to $35.1 Trillion.

    £100 billion in three days.

    (source - national debt tweets)

    At this point last year: $32.6 trillion.
    https://x.com/NationalDebt/status/1686471852783239168

    So 7% year on year before inflation. I have no idea whether that is OK or a disaster,

    You want debt rising less than nominal GDP growth to have debt-to-GDP falling.

    Nominal GDP growth in the USA was 5.8% in the year to the end of Q2 2024.

    So its bad. Debt is rising faster than GDP.

    American growth has been picking up, but inflation has been falling (which is bad for this), so I doubt the pictures improved overall since.
    On track to hit 1 quadrillion dollars in 2068 by my calculations.
    And interest paid on it has recently overtaken the money paid on defence/military which is a Superpower heading for relegation to major power Klaxon.

    (or worse - the Soviet Union went the full Rangers).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @YouGov

    Among 2024 Tory voters there are two stand out leadership contestants: James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat

    Net favourability ratings for...
    James Cleverly: +16
    Tom Tugendhat: +15
    Robert Jenrick: +8
    Kemi Badenoch: +4
    Mel Stride: -8
    Priti Patel: -11

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819299527381176628

    Not really a surprise with Tory voters reduced to Traditionalists like BigG.

    The silver lining for the Tories might be that some of their more radical members have switched to Reform, leaving a gap for the electable candidates. OTOH, BigG hasn't rejoined so the net effect might be zero.
    Gauke has rejoined
    https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/29/david-gauke-why-i-have-rejoined-the-conservative-party/
    Sad
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891

    Pulpstar said:

    MattW said:

    Meanwhile, US National debt up from $35 Trillion to $35.1 Trillion.

    £100 billion in three days.

    (source - national debt tweets)

    At this point last year: $32.6 trillion.
    https://x.com/NationalDebt/status/1686471852783239168

    So 7% year on year before inflation. I have no idea whether that is OK or a disaster,

    You want debt rising less than nominal GDP growth to have debt-to-GDP falling.

    Nominal GDP growth in the USA was 5.8% in the year to the end of Q2 2024.

    So its bad. Debt is rising faster than GDP.

    American growth has been picking up, but inflation has been falling (which is bad for this), so I doubt the pictures improved overall since.
    On track to hit 1 quadrillion dollars in 2068 by my calculations.
    And interest paid on it has recently overtaken the money paid on defence/military which is a Superpower heading for relegation to major power Klaxon.

    (or worse - the Soviet Union went the full Rangers).
    A good question is, who is on the other side of US debt/treasuries ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
  • Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    That's probably more true than you meant it.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @YouGov

    Among 2024 Tory voters there are two stand out leadership contestants: James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat

    Net favourability ratings for...
    James Cleverly: +16
    Tom Tugendhat: +15
    Robert Jenrick: +8
    Kemi Badenoch: +4
    Mel Stride: -8
    Priti Patel: -11

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819299527381176628

    Not really a surprise with Tory voters reduced to Traditionalists like BigG.

    The silver lining for the Tories might be that some of their more radical members have switched to Reform, leaving a gap for the electable candidates. OTOH, BigG hasn't rejoined so the net effect might be zero.
    Gauke has rejoined
    https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/29/david-gauke-why-i-have-rejoined-the-conservative-party/
    Excellent.

    Time to put the past behind us and get back to a big tent of proper Conservativism.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690
    People seem to support council tax reform when it’s not going to affect (or improve) how much they pay. Funny that. If that reform comes on top of the schools vat, it does reach the point where there’s little point staying in this country. Income tax (plus NI) rates are a joke as they are without all this nonsense on top.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    viewcode said:

    Phil said:

    Tres said:

    My friend's grandfather has decided to skip Friday prayers at his mosque today as he doesn't feel safe. Meanwhile Elon Musk is retweeting Tommy Robinson.

    What is it with Musk? I'm full of admiration for his business and technological achievements, but he can be such a dick.
    Ive just had a look at his last 3 days post and Musk is tweeting about Transgender, Venezuala where he seems to have challenged the president to a duel and various techhie things. No Yaxley-Lennon though.

    So is this fake news?
    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1819062565395439767



    If Trump loses then I give it a year before Musk follows in Henry Ford’s footsteps & sets up his own weird quasi-fascist political party that will crash & burn to the great amusement of everyone else.
    At the risk of diverting the conversation into something serious

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-launches-new-clamp-down-on-criminal-and-violent-disorder

    "It will also consider how we can deploy facial recognition technology, which is already used by some forces, more widely across the country. This will mean criminals can be targeted, found and brought to justice quickly."

    There are serious concerns about using such technology - especially in relation to minority groups.

    Hence - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/usa-nypd-black-lives-matter-protests-surveilliance/
    https://aulawreview.org/blog/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

    etc
    In the 20th century, the idea that the state could track your individual position from moment to moment with a camera constantly focussed on you would have been horrifying. In the 2020s it's not even passionately discussed
    And it’s not being used by Harold Finch.

    It being used by people of moral calibre of Post Office management.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585
    edited August 2
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Cricket is a sport where men and women can play against each other without it being too one-sided. For example this is the England women's team playing against the Royal Air Force senior team in 2012.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ21w_jGI78

    Hm - probably not at elite level though. Women bowl significantly less fast and hit significantly less hard. Finger in the air, but I'd say Lancashire Second XI would comfortably beat the women's England team.

    OTOH, at a social level, absolutely, and no-one's going to be put at any risk in the way that they would in other sports.
    I reckon if I cloned myself 10 times and my 12 year old daughter 10 times and had a dads vs daughters match it would be pretty close, whereas the dads team would still win in more physical sports like football.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MattW said:

    Meanwhile, US National debt up from $35 Trillion to $35.1 Trillion.

    £100 billion in three days.

    (source - national debt tweets)

    At this point last year: $32.6 trillion.
    https://x.com/NationalDebt/status/1686471852783239168

    So 7% year on year before inflation. I have no idea whether that is OK or a disaster,

    You want debt rising less than nominal GDP growth to have debt-to-GDP falling.

    Nominal GDP growth in the USA was 5.8% in the year to the end of Q2 2024.

    So its bad. Debt is rising faster than GDP.

    American growth has been picking up, but inflation has been falling (which is bad for this), so I doubt the pictures improved overall since.
    On track to hit 1 quadrillion dollars in 2068 by my calculations.
    And interest paid on it has recently overtaken the money paid on defence/military which is a Superpower heading for relegation to major power Klaxon.

    (or worse - the Soviet Union went the full Rangers).
    A good question is, who is on the other side of US debt/treasuries ?
    Apparently

    30% foreign owned.
    20% other federal government departments.
    50% domestic, public and corportations.

    https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/05/the-federal-government-has-borrowed-trillions-but-who-owns-all-that-debt
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.
  • moonshine said:

    People seem to support council tax reform when it’s not going to affect (or improve) how much they pay. Funny that. If that reform comes on top of the schools vat, it does reach the point where there’s little point staying in this country. Income tax (plus NI) rates are a joke as they are without all this nonsense on top.

    What a weird argument.

    You do realise that you can choose to have the VAT on school fees, like school fees in general, are £0.00 if your children go to a typical school like 93% of pupils do?

    I prefer voluntary taxation over mandatory taxation - paying school fees, like playing the lottery - is entirely voluntary.

    We should reduce taxation on earned incomes I agree.
  • moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    Yes. Someone like Musk replying to one of Mr Yaxley Lennons tweets indicates a major problem.

    But not the problem those piling into Musk think it is.
  • FossFoss Posts: 992
    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    'Black Women are Manly' is a racist trope in the States.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,889
    Scott_xP said:

    ClippP said:

    One very real advantage of taxing just the value of the land is that you do not have to value it on a site by site basis. I am sure the value of my land (where the house is built and the garden) is exactly the same as the land next door, per square yard.

    That may be true at the micro level, but is demonstrably not true at the macro level
    Intuitively, yes, obviously. Because society has over the generations put in the infrastructure, which will give sites a different value. And planning conditions will also come into play, because these will retrict the extent to which you can develop the site.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Cricket is a sport where men and women can play against each other without it being too one-sided. For example this is the England women's team playing against the Royal Air Force senior team in 2012.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ21w_jGI78

    Hm - probably not at elite level though. Women bowl significantly less fast and hit significantly less hard. Finger in the air, but I'd say Lancashire Second XI would comfortably beat the women's England team.

    OTOH, at a social level, absolutely, and no-one's going to be put at any risk in the way that they would in other sports.
    I reckon if I cloned myself 10 times and my 12 year old daughter 10 times and had a dads vs daughters match it would be pretty close, whereas the dads team would still win in more physical sports like football.
    We had a lad at our prep school, Craig Payne iirc - he was 6 foot tall at the age of 12 and boy did he smash the bowling round.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Keir Starmer's net favourability rating has dropped nine points since mid-July, from ±0 to -9

    Favourable: 40% (-4 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 49% (+5)

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297161789485514

    The number of Labour voters with a favourable opinion of Keir Starmer has fallen 8pts since the general election - meanwhile his popularity has increased 7pts among Tory voters

    Labour voters: 79% (-8 from 5-8 Jul)
    Lib Dem voters: 57% (-5)
    Con voters: 18% (+7)
    Reform voters: 8%
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297164188606805

    Following her spending cuts announcements, Rachel Reeves has seen her 'unfavourable' rating increase by 12pts

    Favourable: 26% (-1 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 37% (+12)
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297166092808227

    Blair by contrast had a massively high net favourable rating in early August 1997

    Starmer realises the clock is ticking though and him and Reeves are going to use political capital to get things done more quickly than Blair did.
    They will get things done that fit with their ideology; it's already becoming clear they kept their powder dry during the campaign.

    I don't think they have the political capital to do it. Just seat count.

    Not inconceivable this is a one-term government.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,166
    edited August 2
    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if she has a security team following her around wherever she goes.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Most of the public doesn't want to hear from the Tories for a number of years.
    Well, tough. You're bloody well going to, and you need to.

    This government is already doing disastrous things and it needs to be vigorously opposed.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if she has a security team following her around wherever she goes.
    I think so
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690

    moonshine said:

    People seem to support council tax reform when it’s not going to affect (or improve) how much they pay. Funny that. If that reform comes on top of the schools vat, it does reach the point where there’s little point staying in this country. Income tax (plus NI) rates are a joke as they are without all this nonsense on top.

    What a weird argument.

    You do realise that you can choose to have the VAT on school fees, like school fees in general, are £0.00 if your children go to a typical school like 93% of pupils do?

    I prefer voluntary taxation over mandatory taxation - paying school fees, like playing the lottery - is entirely voluntary.

    We should reduce taxation on earned incomes I agree.
    Show me this imaginary school? It doesn’t exist because I have been told there are ZERO places to move mid intake in my catchment. I have also been giving a quiet reprimand over email by my council for even considering changing my child’s school as it would be “disruptive”. I’m not sure on what planet you ever thought of yourself as a conservative, with your wet dream of concreting the green belt and ever higher taxation for an ever growing state.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301
    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if she has a security team following her around wherever she goes.
    She does, as do all former PMs, Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries, Defence Secretaries, and Northern Ireland Secretaries.
  • Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Keir Starmer's net favourability rating has dropped nine points since mid-July, from ±0 to -9

    Favourable: 40% (-4 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 49% (+5)

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297161789485514

    The number of Labour voters with a favourable opinion of Keir Starmer has fallen 8pts since the general election - meanwhile his popularity has increased 7pts among Tory voters

    Labour voters: 79% (-8 from 5-8 Jul)
    Lib Dem voters: 57% (-5)
    Con voters: 18% (+7)
    Reform voters: 8%
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297164188606805

    Following her spending cuts announcements, Rachel Reeves has seen her 'unfavourable' rating increase by 12pts

    Favourable: 26% (-1 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 37% (+12)
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297166092808227

    Blair by contrast had a massively high net favourable rating in early August 1997

    Starmer realises the clock is ticking though and him and Reeves are going to use political capital to get things done more quickly than Blair did.
    They will get things done that fit with their ideology; it's already becoming clear they kept their powder dry during the campaign.

    I don't think they have the political capital to do it. Just seat count.

    Not inconceivable this is a one-term government.
    Can you list say the top 3 things they've done, that you disapprove of, that Sunak wouldn't have had he stayed in power?

    I can't think of anything yet, which is the problem. The last administration was state, state, state too as you said above.

    At least now the Conservatives have a chance to think through what could be different, rather than being merely high tax, high spend administrators themselves.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357
    Scott_xP said:

    Another sitting down Gold :)

    Lightweights....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if she has a security team following her around wherever she goes.
    To stop her sticking metal things in electric sockets?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Foss said:

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    'Black Women are Manly' is a racist trope in the States.
    Yes, and Mark Steel is British, so he probably didn't realise that he'd made a bad choice.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357
    edited August 2
    Foss said:

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    'Black Women are Manly' is a racist trope in the States.
    But surely, not when they are just 4 foot 8?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    People seem to support council tax reform when it’s not going to affect (or improve) how much they pay. Funny that. If that reform comes on top of the schools vat, it does reach the point where there’s little point staying in this country. Income tax (plus NI) rates are a joke as they are without all this nonsense on top.

    What a weird argument.

    You do realise that you can choose to have the VAT on school fees, like school fees in general, are £0.00 if your children go to a typical school like 93% of pupils do?

    I prefer voluntary taxation over mandatory taxation - paying school fees, like playing the lottery - is entirely voluntary.

    We should reduce taxation on earned incomes I agree.
    Show me this imaginary school? It doesn’t exist because I have been told there are ZERO places to move mid intake in my catchment. I have also been giving a quiet reprimand over email by my council for even considering changing my child’s school as it would be “disruptive”. I’m not sure on what planet you ever thought of yourself as a conservative, with your wet dream of concreting the green belt and ever higher taxation for an ever growing state.
    Well he did vote for Starmer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Most of the public doesn't want to hear from the Tories for a number of years.
    Well, tough. You're bloody well going to, and you need to.

    This government is already doing disastrous things and it needs to be vigorously opposed.
    Casino is turning up the volume...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,454
    edited August 2
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Cricket is a sport where men and women can play against each other without it being too one-sided. For example this is the England women's team playing against the Royal Air Force senior team in 2012.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ21w_jGI78

    Hm - probably not at elite level though. Women bowl significantly less fast and hit significantly less hard. Finger in the air, but I'd say Lancashire Second XI would comfortably beat the women's England team.

    OTOH, at a social level, absolutely, and no-one's going to be put at any risk in the way that they would in other sports.
    I reckon if I cloned myself 10 times and my 12 year old daughter 10 times and had a dads vs daughters match it would be pretty close, whereas the dads team would still win in more physical sports like football.
    Elite level fast bowlers against any normies is dangerous. I faced Alex Tudor in his prime and ducked into a bouncer, at which point I knew I didn't have what it took to be a pro....I also faced the likes of some West Indies international cricketers and I was also in serious danger with that amount of heat. And that is still 10 mph below a Mark Wood or Mitchell Starc redlining it, but it is 20mph faster than most professional woman ever face. I found once you got to near 80, every few mph more really ramped up the difficulty. I personally could get it up high 70s, but you could see for people I bowled at who were pros, it was like was like waiting for a slow moving bus (vs village cricketers who faced it, was danger of hospital).

    I also faced Mushtaq Ahmed, the only danger was I might actually be actually be good enough to nick it at some point (I actually hit him for 6, I don't speak Punjabi or Urdu, but I don't think he was best pleased, as I had missed his previous 5 balls by miles).
  • Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    edited August 2

    If the proposed reform of Council Tax goes ahead, it would reduce the demand for home improvements and extensions, and hopefully also the surfeit of property porn TV programmes.

    However, the armies of small builders could then be better employed building new houses in small estates, gap fills, etc.

    If they're anything like the ones on extension/renovation jobs round here, I wouldn't trust most of them to build a duck house, never mind a Wendy house, *and* get it finished before Christmas 2025.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Remember we were having a discussion a while back about how much it might cost to set up a full scale UK chip industry, and guessed anything from £100bn upwards ?

    Looking at Intel, pre-market, we could just buy them.
  • moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    Under-18 so anonymous isn't bullshit, its the law!

    A judge can waive anonymity and when it went before the Judge he did, butt it can't happen until then.

    We should object when the Police break the law, not encourage it. If you object to the law, call for it to be changed, don't deny it exists.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,772
    edited August 2

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Keir Starmer's net favourability rating has dropped nine points since mid-July, from ±0 to -9

    Favourable: 40% (-4 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 49% (+5)

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297161789485514

    The number of Labour voters with a favourable opinion of Keir Starmer has fallen 8pts since the general election - meanwhile his popularity has increased 7pts among Tory voters

    Labour voters: 79% (-8 from 5-8 Jul)
    Lib Dem voters: 57% (-5)
    Con voters: 18% (+7)
    Reform voters: 8%
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297164188606805

    Following her spending cuts announcements, Rachel Reeves has seen her 'unfavourable' rating increase by 12pts

    Favourable: 26% (-1 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 37% (+12)
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297166092808227

    Blair by contrast had a massively high net favourable rating in early August 1997

    Starmer realises the clock is ticking though and him and Reeves are going to use political capital to get things done more quickly than Blair did.
    They will get things done that fit with their ideology; it's already becoming clear they kept their powder dry during the campaign.

    I don't think they have the political capital to do it. Just seat count.

    Not inconceivable this is a one-term government.
    I still think their 2024 campaign will come back to haunt them in the coming years. I think we are now starting to see the slight twinges of buyers remorse from some. They could’ve avoided that by being more upfront about their plans. I’m not sure the “say nothing and justify it after you’ve won” tactic is going to look that great in coming months. But we shall see.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    Er ... what rhetoric?

    The only thing in the Lab manifesto is about offshore trusts aiui,

    I'd say that is the Telegraph continuing it's journey to being a large format Daily Express. And very strange comments from Frank Skinner - did he believe what the someone told him? If anything, he's being lumped in with people who *made* a lot of money and will pass it on, not those who inherited it.

    https://archive.ph/MMAPg
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Most of the public doesn't want to hear from the Tories for a number of years.
    Well, tough. You're bloody well going to, and you need to.

    This government is already doing disastrous things and it needs to be vigorously opposed.
    Casino is turning up the volume...
    Well, beware hubris. What seems laughable now can change very quickly.

    Look at British politics over the last 7 years: I can think of at least two Tory collapses, and two Labour ones, a Lib Dem boomlet and a huge Brexit Party flash in the pan. On top we just had a very weird GE.

    There are 5 years until the next general election.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    moonshine said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
    There are usually two reasons for a tax - as a revenue generator, and as a disincentive to whatever you're taxing...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Cricket is a sport where men and women can play against each other without it being too one-sided. For example this is the England women's team playing against the Royal Air Force senior team in 2012.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ21w_jGI78

    Hm - probably not at elite level though. Women bowl significantly less fast and hit significantly less hard. Finger in the air, but I'd say Lancashire Second XI would comfortably beat the women's England team.

    OTOH, at a social level, absolutely, and no-one's going to be put at any risk in the way that they would in other sports.
    I reckon if I cloned myself 10 times and my 12 year old daughter 10 times and had a dads vs daughters match it would be pretty close, whereas the dads team would still win in more physical sports like football.
    Youngest's cricket club has two ladies teams who play on Sunday.
    The Men's sides, who play Saturday, each have two or three females at Second to Fourth XI levels.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Most of the public doesn't want to hear from the Tories for a number of years.
    Well, tough. You're bloody well going to, and you need to.

    This government is already doing disastrous things and it needs to be vigorously opposed.
    Casino is turning up the volume...
    Well, beware hubris. What seems laughable now can change very quickly.

    Look at British politics over the last 7 years: I can think of at least two Tory collapses, and two Labour ones, a Lib Dem boomlet and a huge Brexit Party flash in the pan. On top we just had a very weird GE.

    There are 5 years until the next general election.
    What hubris ?
    I didn't vote either for your lot, or the current government.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,828
    edited August 2
    moonshine said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
    Because that's how taxes work.

    If my wage goes up, my taxes go up.
    If my wage goes down, my taxes go down.

    If the cost of a good or service goes up, the tax on it goes up.
    If the cost of a good or service goes down, the tax on it goes down.

    Currently too many people view property as a gold mine, to which price rises are an unalloyed good thing for them. It needs balancing with the rest of the economy. That way:

    If the cost of a property goes up, the tax on it goes up.
    If the cost of a property goes down, the tax on it goes down.

    Taxes should ideally be low, flat and consistent. That should apply to property as much as anywhere else, a low, flat, consistent percentage of value.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?

    One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Most of the public doesn't want to hear from the Tories for a number of years.
    Well, tough. You're bloody well going to, and you need to.

    This government is already doing disastrous things and it needs to be vigorously opposed.
    Casino is turning up the volume...
    Well, beware hubris. What seems laughable now can change very quickly.

    Look at British politics over the last 7 years: I can think of at least two Tory collapses, and two Labour ones, a Lib Dem boomlet and a huge Brexit Party flash in the pan. On top we just had a very weird GE.

    There are 5 years until the next general election.
    What hubris ?
    I didn't vote either for your lot, or the current government.
    Fair enough, I thought you were taking the piss.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Most of the public doesn't want to hear from the Tories for a number of years.
    Well, tough. You're bloody well going to, and you need to.

    This government is already doing disastrous things and it needs to be vigorously opposed.
    Casino is turning up the volume...
    Well, beware hubris. What seems laughable now can change very quickly.

    Look at British politics over the last 7 years: I can think of at least two Tory collapses, and two Labour ones, a Lib Dem boomlet and a huge Brexit Party flash in the pan. On top we just had a very weird GE.

    There are 5 years until the next general election.
    What hubris ?
    I didn't vote either for your lot, or the current government.
    I hadnt got you down for Reform.

    Surprising.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,454
    edited August 2
    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    I haven't been following the Olympic boxer case. It is that they are like Caster Semenya, a biological outlier who is inter-sex (apologises if using the wrong terminology), or are they somebody who was born in biological normal range for a man, who has transitioned e.g. the NZ weightlifter from the Toyoko Olympics?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    I haven't been following the Olympic boxer case. It is that they are like Caster Semenya, a biological outlier who is inter-sex (apologises if using the wrong terminology), or are they somebody who was born in biological normal range for a man, who has transitioned e.g. the NZ weightlifter from the Toyoko Olympics?
    I think it's the same as Semenya. This thread explains it:

    https://x.com/runthinkwrite/status/1818672525980676298
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Keir Starmer's net favourability rating has dropped nine points since mid-July, from ±0 to -9

    Favourable: 40% (-4 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 49% (+5)

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297161789485514

    The number of Labour voters with a favourable opinion of Keir Starmer has fallen 8pts since the general election - meanwhile his popularity has increased 7pts among Tory voters

    Labour voters: 79% (-8 from 5-8 Jul)
    Lib Dem voters: 57% (-5)
    Con voters: 18% (+7)
    Reform voters: 8%
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297164188606805

    Following her spending cuts announcements, Rachel Reeves has seen her 'unfavourable' rating increase by 12pts

    Favourable: 26% (-1 from 17-18 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 37% (+12)
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1819297166092808227

    Blair by contrast had a massively high net favourable rating in early August 1997

    Starmer realises the clock is ticking though and him and Reeves are going to use political capital to get things done more quickly than Blair did.
    They will get things done that fit with their ideology; it's already becoming clear they kept their powder dry during the campaign.

    I don't think they have the political capital to do it. Just seat count.

    Not inconceivable this is a one-term government.
    I still think their 2024 campaign will come back to haunt them in the coming years. I think we are now starting to see the slight twinges of buyers remorse from some. They could’ve avoided that by being more upfront about their plans. I’m not sure the “say nothing and justify it after you’ve won” tactic is going to look that great in coming months. But we shall see.
    Maybe this is why Starmer was so happy being in Corbyn's cabinet. Because he sort of is one but just thinks he has better Game.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @JohnRentoul

    Replying to
    @YouGov

    Tory 2024 voters are not the ones that matter: favourability among all voters *who have an opinion*:
    Tom Tugendhat -31
    James Cleverly -48
    Robert Jenrick -54
    Kemi Badenoch -57
    Mel Stride -61
    Priti Patel -62

    Most of the public doesn't want to hear from the Tories for a number of years.
    Well, tough. You're bloody well going to, and you need to.

    This government is already doing disastrous things and it needs to be vigorously opposed.
    Casino is turning up the volume...
    Well, beware hubris. What seems laughable now can change very quickly.

    Look at British politics over the last 7 years: I can think of at least two Tory collapses, and two Labour ones, a Lib Dem boomlet and a huge Brexit Party flash in the pan. On top we just had a very weird GE.

    There are 5 years until the next general election.
    What hubris ?
    I didn't vote either for your lot, or the current government.
    I hadnt got you down for Reform.

    Surprising.
    Didn't our friend vote LibDem?
  • Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
    There are usually two reasons for a tax - as a revenue generator, and as a disincentive to whatever you're taxing...
    Indeed, which is why stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with a consistent property tax that applies to all properties.

    Stamp duty is a tax only on mobility. We should not be discouraging mobility.

    Property taxes is a tax on property price rises. We should be discouraging that.

    Especially if the tax is levied on undeveloped land value, then it would encourage more development and growth and everyone claims to want growth - but many seem to not really want it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891
    edited August 2

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    I haven't been following the Olympic boxer case. It is that they are like Caster Semenya, a biological outlier who is inter-sex (apologises if using the wrong terminology), or are they somebody who was born in biological normal range for a man, who has transitioned e.g. the NZ weightlifter from the Toyoko Olympics?
    I *think* Imane is a 5-ARD male, Semenya certainly is.

    To my mind 5-ARD males, whatever their passport might say should not be competing in the female category.

    If Imane is a swyer syndrome case then that's more difficult to decide, but 5-ard = internal testes = not female so far as sports go.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,454
    edited August 2

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    I find it interesting that only a couple of weeks a whole host of people were running defence for the eco-fascists and their "whole truth lies" 5 bollocks, and that despite repeated criminal acts they shouldn't be getting proper sentences, is way OOT, etc. We need to understand these people and their points of view. While, their protests have gone way beyond legitimate ones, with constant criminal acts.

    Now, other mob turn up and its all about the fascists, far right, and the solution is must go full authoritarian on them all, travel bans, facial recognition, etc. I bet we aren't travel banning the Phoebe's of this world, in fact Starmer has been very softly softly on these people in the past.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?

    One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
    Er, no. Such things are never justified. And I've been perfectly clear on that.

    Non-violent protests - within the bounds of the law - are fine.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,465

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
    There are usually two reasons for a tax - as a revenue generator, and as a disincentive to whatever you're taxing...
    Indeed, which is why stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with a consistent property tax that applies to all properties.

    Stamp duty is a tax only on mobility. We should not be discouraging mobility.

    Property taxes is a tax on property price rises. We should be discouraging that.

    Especially if the tax is levied on undeveloped land value, then it would encourage more development and growth and everyone claims to want growth - but many seem to not really want it.
    I am not a fan of Stamp Duty, but the main argument for it is there is liquid cash available to be taxed involved in the transaction.
  • Balrog821Balrog821 Posts: 2

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Is this 0.5% based on gross value - or would it be net after the mortgage on the property taken off?

    It'd surely have to be gross or there'd be (More in the BTL market...) perverse incentives to basically remortgage up to your eyeballs every cycle. The state wouldn't have the bandwidth to keep up with it all if mortgages were factored and the tax take would be extremely reduced.
    Another option would be for a fixed 0.3% levy set by the government with councils able to increase it by up to 1% locally.

    So London councils would probably only an another 0.05% while Hartlepool would maybe add 0.7%

    That would avoid central government having to administer a cectral pot.

    I think you would also need to include a curtilage element, based on square meters, as well as a property value element, to make it fair so that flats don't get charged the same as houses with large gardens.

    You could also charge a slightly higher rate for houses rather than flats and a slightly higher rate again for detached houses.
    You're falling into HYUFD's university trap.

    Every council would raise it to 1% I think. Certainly every council outside London.

    1.3% tax/yr would be a very very different proposition for most of the country compared to 0.5%.
    The difference is that can elect a council that dosent do that.

    You would have to cap it at a level that keeps revenue the same as council tax + CPI, at least for the first few years.
    At 0.5% I'd be paying about 20 times more. I can absolutely see the point that the dynamic range of current council tax is too small and should be increased by say 5x, but 20 times would take some getting used to. And I know it's a first world problem...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891
    edited August 2
    Balrog821 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Is this 0.5% based on gross value - or would it be net after the mortgage on the property taken off?

    It'd surely have to be gross or there'd be (More in the BTL market...) perverse incentives to basically remortgage up to your eyeballs every cycle. The state wouldn't have the bandwidth to keep up with it all if mortgages were factored and the tax take would be extremely reduced.
    Another option would be for a fixed 0.3% levy set by the government with councils able to increase it by up to 1% locally.

    So London councils would probably only an another 0.05% while Hartlepool would maybe add 0.7%

    That would avoid central government having to administer a cectral pot.

    I think you would also need to include a curtilage element, based on square meters, as well as a property value element, to make it fair so that flats don't get charged the same as houses with large gardens.

    You could also charge a slightly higher rate for houses rather than flats and a slightly higher rate again for detached houses.
    You're falling into HYUFD's university trap.

    Every council would raise it to 1% I think. Certainly every council outside London.

    1.3% tax/yr would be a very very different proposition for most of the country compared to 0.5%.
    The difference is that can elect a council that dosent do that.

    You would have to cap it at a level that keeps revenue the same as council tax + CPI, at least for the first few years.
    At 0.5% I'd be paying about 20 times more. I can absolutely see the point that the dynamic range of current council tax is too small and should be increased by say 5x, but 20 times would take some getting used to. And I know it's a first world problem...
    What the fucking fuck do you live in, a Wandsworth mansion ?

    The "Fair tax" website had a proposal to cap it out at +£1000 a year to let you know, which seems reasonable.
  • Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
    There are usually two reasons for a tax - as a revenue generator, and as a disincentive to whatever you're taxing...
    Indeed, which is why stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with a consistent property tax that applies to all properties.

    Stamp duty is a tax only on mobility. We should not be discouraging mobility.

    Property taxes is a tax on property price rises. We should be discouraging that.

    Especially if the tax is levied on undeveloped land value, then it would encourage more development and growth and everyone claims to want growth - but many seem to not really want it.
    I am not a fan of Stamp Duty, but the main argument for it is there is liquid cash available to be taxed involved in the transaction.
    It is an absolutely terrible and flawed argument. Its when people are at the most stretched and least liquid.

    People struggle to get enough cash to even put down a deposit. Requiring enough cash to put down both a deposit and stamp duty is even worse.

    An annualised tax is far superior in every way. I'd be OK with suggesting that people who can't afford the tax can put a lien for that percentage of the property as an alternative instead.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,166

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    Sounds like Skinner thinks there should be two types of money. That's an idea that will end well — not.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?

    One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
    That’s rather close to whataboutry

    The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.

    The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.

    As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585
    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    Cricket is a sport where men and women can play against each other without it being too one-sided. For example this is the England women's team playing against the Royal Air Force senior team in 2012.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ21w_jGI78

    Hm - probably not at elite level though. Women bowl significantly less fast and hit significantly less hard. Finger in the air, but I'd say Lancashire Second XI would comfortably beat the women's England team.

    OTOH, at a social level, absolutely, and no-one's going to be put at any risk in the way that they would in other sports.
    I reckon if I cloned myself 10 times and my 12 year old daughter 10 times and had a dads vs daughters match it would be pretty close, whereas the dads team would still win in more physical sports like football.
    Youngest's cricket club has two ladies teams who play on Sunday.
    The Men's sides, who play Saturday, each have two or three females at Second to Fourth XI levels.
    Two of my girls play cricket. The format is brilliant: 8 or 10 players, in pairs: for four overs, one pair is in, and remain in no matter how many wickets they lose; instead, for each wicket, the fielding side is credited 5 runs. Then they come off and are replaced by another pair. Similarly, they bowl in pairs. Everyone gets to have a go. Some players (like my middle daughter) are pretty good and smack it about for a bit or take a few wickets; others (like my younger daughter) contribute every time they keep a ball out. Everyone gets to contribute, everyone feels part of a team. And when my youngest scored her first run I felt prouder than when I saw my middle daughter score 20 off an over.

    Not really relevant to whatever the argument was, but I just thought I'd share. Cricket: it's really good.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690
    Balrog821 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Is this 0.5% based on gross value - or would it be net after the mortgage on the property taken off?

    It'd surely have to be gross or there'd be (More in the BTL market...) perverse incentives to basically remortgage up to your eyeballs every cycle. The state wouldn't have the bandwidth to keep up with it all if mortgages were factored and the tax take would be extremely reduced.
    Another option would be for a fixed 0.3% levy set by the government with councils able to increase it by up to 1% locally.

    So London councils would probably only an another 0.05% while Hartlepool would maybe add 0.7%

    That would avoid central government having to administer a cectral pot.

    I think you would also need to include a curtilage element, based on square meters, as well as a property value element, to make it fair so that flats don't get charged the same as houses with large gardens.

    You could also charge a slightly higher rate for houses rather than flats and a slightly higher rate again for detached houses.
    You're falling into HYUFD's university trap.

    Every council would raise it to 1% I think. Certainly every council outside London.

    1.3% tax/yr would be a very very different proposition for most of the country compared to 0.5%.
    The difference is that can elect a council that dosent do that.

    You would have to cap it at a level that keeps revenue the same as council tax + CPI, at least for the first few years.
    At 0.5% I'd be paying about 20 times more. I can absolutely see the point that the dynamic range of current council tax is too small and should be increased by say 5x, but 20 times would take some getting used to. And I know it's a first world problem...
    More meaningfully taxing gross assets vs net assets in this way would have some unintended consequences too, especially given its taxing unrealised mark to market gains.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,696

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    What is bullshit about “under 18 so anonymous”? That’s the law. The police followed it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    I haven't been following the Olympic boxer case. It is that they are like Caster Semenya, a biological outlier who is inter-sex (apologises if using the wrong terminology), or are they somebody who was born in biological normal range for a man, who has transitioned e.g. the NZ weightlifter from the Toyoko Olympics?
    I *think* Imane is a 5-ARD male, Semenya certainly is.

    To my mind 5-ARD males, whatever their passport might say should be competing in the female category.
    I've not followed it either but aiui from the Betfair forum, the boxer was born with and still has female genitalia, so if that is the test... She's also got a pretty woeful win/loss record. But if testosterone is the criterion, then she should not be there. Then there's Freddie Mills' advice to bang your opponent on the nose, which is what happened to the Italian boxer, who was sufficiently disorientated to throw in the towel. But dyor because I can't be bothered.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    I find it interesting that only a couple of weeks a whole host of people were running defence for the eco-fascists and their "whole truth lies" 5 bollocks, and that despite repeated criminal acts they shouldn't be getting proper sentences, is way OOT, etc. We need to understand these people and their points of view. While, their protests have gone way beyond legitimate ones, with constant criminal acts.

    Now, other mob turn up and its all about the fascists, far right, and the solution is must go full authoritarian on them all, travel bans, facial recognition, etc. I bet we aren't travel banning the Phoebe's of this world, in fact Starmer has been very softly softly on these people in the past.
    And equally people who were ambivalent to the destruction of traffic enforcement cameras by bombs….
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,454

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    I find it interesting that only a couple of weeks a whole host of people were running defence for the eco-fascists and their "whole truth lies" 5 bollocks, and that despite repeated criminal acts they shouldn't be getting proper sentences, is way OOT, etc. We need to understand these people and their points of view. While, their protests have gone way beyond legitimate ones, with constant criminal acts.

    Now, other mob turn up and its all about the fascists, far right, and the solution is must go full authoritarian on them all, travel bans, facial recognition, etc. I bet we aren't travel banning the Phoebe's of this world, in fact Starmer has been very softly softly on these people in the past.
    And equally people who were ambivalent to the destruction of traffic enforcement cameras by bombs….
    Are the bladerunners or whatever the idiots called themselves still going?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891
    Andy_JS said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    Sounds like Skinner thinks there should be two types of money. That's an idea that will end well — not.
    It's a bonkers argument he's making - he has made lots of money personally; by definition inheritance tax is.... inherited - so the idea his children/descendants should be treated differently to any other is quite mad no matter your views on the rights or wrongs of inheritance.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,922

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
    There are usually two reasons for a tax - as a revenue generator, and as a disincentive to whatever you're taxing...
    Indeed, which is why stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with a consistent property tax that applies to all properties.

    Stamp duty is a tax only on mobility. We should not be discouraging mobility.

    Property taxes is a tax on property price rises. We should be discouraging that.

    Especially if the tax is levied on undeveloped land value, then it would encourage more development and growth and everyone claims to want growth - but many seem to not really want it.
    This is absolutely spot on.

    The effect of stamp duty is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.

    We want people to be in the right sized home for them. The best way to do that is to make the process of moving between homes as cheap as possible. Right now, we have a situation where we have housing shortages, but a record number of empty bedrooms, due to baby boomers (like OGH) essentially being discouraged from trading down, because it costs so much to do so.

    I would abolish stamp duty entirely, and I would have a 0.5% annual property value tax for occupied homes, and a 2.5% one for unoccupied ones. This would work to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    What is bullshit about “under 18 so anonymous”? That’s the law. The police followed it.
    But the police seem not to be too worried about the law, when illegally strip searching black teenagers?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,922
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.

    Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
    The problem is too many now have houses and not enough have a house. Something has to change.
    So build more houses.

    Raiding those who've already got them is just going to royally fuck people off.

    Sort of hope Labour do it: we'll be rid of them much sooner.
    You're right but unfortunately today those who have houses object to more being built.

    A property tax replacing Council Tax and more importantly Stamp Duty would be completely the right thing to do and ensure that those who are mobile or move for work aren't punished versus those who are immobile or don't work, as happens today.

    And have the side-bonus of meaning if property prices surge that costs everyone money, not just those who need to pay, and if prices fall then everyone gets a tax cut.
    Pray tell what the economic rationale is for taxing inflation without indexation in the way you describe?
    There are usually two reasons for a tax - as a revenue generator, and as a disincentive to whatever you're taxing...
    Indeed, which is why stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with a consistent property tax that applies to all properties.

    Stamp duty is a tax only on mobility. We should not be discouraging mobility.

    Property taxes is a tax on property price rises. We should be discouraging that.

    Especially if the tax is levied on undeveloped land value, then it would encourage more development and growth and everyone claims to want growth - but many seem to not really want it.
    This is absolutely spot on.

    The effect of stamp duty is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.

    We want people to be in the right sized home for them. The best way to do that is to make the process of moving between homes as cheap as possible. Right now, we have a situation where we have housing shortages, but a record number of empty bedrooms, due to baby boomers (like OGH) essentially being discouraged from trading down, because it costs so much to do so.

    I would abolish stamp duty entirely, and I would have a 0.5% annual property value tax for occupied homes, and a 2.5% one for unoccupied ones. This would work to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
    Just to add, I would have self reporting of property values, but the government/council can buy anyone's home at a 50% premium to reported value. Which would discourage underreporting.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,772
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    Sounds like Skinner thinks there should be two types of money. That's an idea that will end well — not.
    It's a bonkers argument he's making - he has made lots of money personally; by definition inheritance tax is.... inherited - so the idea his children/descendants should be treated differently to any other is quite mad no matter your views on the rights or wrongs of inheritance.
    It is, as others have said, the classic example of ”tax those other people, but I don’t deserve to be taxed.”

    Frank Skinner’s children obviously need a leg up but no one else’s do.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,454
    edited August 2
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    Sounds like Skinner thinks there should be two types of money. That's an idea that will end well — not.
    It's a bonkers argument he's making - he has made lots of money personally; by definition inheritance tax is.... inherited - so the idea his children/descendants should be treated differently to any other is quite mad no matter your views on the rights or wrongs of inheritance.
    Also, logical conclusion. We penalise Rees-Mogg (who I believe is independently wealthy through his investment firm anyway), but in 2 generations time, mini-Skinners are still getting their inheritance money, how is that any different from Rees-Mogg of today (who I don't even know is a great example is he? He is a posho, was his family uber uber wealthy or just wealthy?).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    I haven't been following the Olympic boxer case. It is that they are like Caster Semenya, a biological outlier who is inter-sex (apologises if using the wrong terminology), or are they somebody who was born in biological normal range for a man, who has transitioned e.g. the NZ weightlifter from the Toyoko Olympics?
    I *think* Imane is a 5-ARD male, Semenya certainly is.

    To my mind 5-ARD males, whatever their passport might say should be competing in the female category.
    I've not followed it either but aiui from the Betfair forum, the boxer was born with and still has female genitalia, so if that is the test... She's also got a pretty woeful win/loss record. But if testosterone is the criterion, then she should not be there. Then there's Freddie Mills' advice to bang your opponent on the nose, which is what happened to the Italian boxer, who was sufficiently disorientated to throw in the towel. But dyor because I can't be bothered.
    I'd have the presence of any sort of testes (Both internal/external) as the dividing criterion - as that's ultimately what provides male advantage. If (s?)he's producing testosterone in some other way then best of luck to her/him.
    & No you can't chop them off to get into the female cat.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,958
    edited August 2
    On topic: Those who want to understand Kamala Harris should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never", especially chapter 10, "All About the Green", in which he shows that politicians, most of them Democrats, have used contributions to "environmental" organizations from fossil fuel interests to block competition from nuclear power.

    Harris played a small part in that:
    "In office for a third and fourth term, starting in 2011, starting in 2011, [Jerry] Brown and his allies resumed the effort they began in the 1970s to shut down the state's nuclear plants. It started with a plant called the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in San Diego County."

    Brown's administration made a deal with the utility that owned the plant, offering them higher rates, if they would close it. They agreed, rates and emissions both went up, as they switched to natural gas.

    And then: "In November 2014, state and federal agents raided the CPUC's offices in a joint investigation of potential criminal activities related to the permanent closure and settlement proceedings of SONGS. Kamala Harris, California's attorney general at the time, either killed or stalled the investigations. The CPUC refused to turn over sixty or more emails from Governor Brown's office."
    (pp. 215-216)

    The Brown family has had substantial financial interests in fossil fuels, for decades.

    From this, I conclude that Harris is adept at protecting key allies in the California Democratic Party.

    (There's a little more about her in Shellenberger's "San Fransicko".)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    edited August 2

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’

    “When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.

    “I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”

    Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/01/frank-skinner-labour-inheritance-tax-threats-rachel-reeves/

    Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.

    Sounds like Skinner thinks there should be two types of money. That's an idea that will end well — not.
    It's a bonkers argument he's making - he has made lots of money personally; by definition inheritance tax is.... inherited - so the idea his children/descendants should be treated differently to any other is quite mad no matter your views on the rights or wrongs of inheritance.
    It is, as others have said, the classic example of ”tax those other people, but I don’t deserve to be taxed.”

    Frank Skinner’s children obviously need a leg up but no one else’s do.
    “I’m hard working and working class”

    - Bloke standing by giant fireplace in mansion that has multiple postcodes
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,922
    Whenever I see a JK Rowling post on Twitter, I'm reminded of a line from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, when Dudley Dursley says

    "Daddy's gone mad, hasn't he?"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,922
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    I haven't been following the Olympic boxer case. It is that they are like Caster Semenya, a biological outlier who is inter-sex (apologises if using the wrong terminology), or are they somebody who was born in biological normal range for a man, who has transitioned e.g. the NZ weightlifter from the Toyoko Olympics?
    I *think* Imane is a 5-ARD male, Semenya certainly is.

    To my mind 5-ARD males, whatever their passport might say should be competing in the female category.
    I've not followed it either but aiui from the Betfair forum, the boxer was born with and still has female genitalia, so if that is the test... She's also got a pretty woeful win/loss record. But if testosterone is the criterion, then she should not be there. Then there's Freddie Mills' advice to bang your opponent on the nose, which is what happened to the Italian boxer, who was sufficiently disorientated to throw in the towel. But dyor because I can't be bothered.
    I'd have the presence of any sort of testes (Both internal/external) as the dividing criterion - as that's ultimately what provides male advantage. If (s?)he's producing testosterone in some other way then best of luck to her/him.
    & No you can't chop them off to get into the female cat.
    The point is, though, that this is clearly an area where sensible people can debate what is right and what is wrong.

    And then there's JK Rowling.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    moonshine said:

    Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.

    Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.

    It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
    Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
    I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.

    This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.

    They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
    If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?

    One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
    Didn't PBers of that ilk support the angle grinding of ULEZ cameras, or at least nod sagely and say it's all the fault of that nasty Labour?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    This tweet is obviously dumb:

    https://x.com/mrmarksteel/status/1819280893539713150

    @mrmarksteel
    I think Simone Biles should be banned from women’s gymnastics as her muscles are too strong and manly. She should be replaced by Holly Willoughby.


    But it's amusing that he's now getting accused - unfairly, I suspect - of being racist.

    I haven't been following the Olympic boxer case. It is that they are like Caster Semenya, a biological outlier who is inter-sex (apologises if using the wrong terminology), or are they somebody who was born in biological normal range for a man, who has transitioned e.g. the NZ weightlifter from the Toyoko Olympics?
    I *think* Imane is a 5-ARD male, Semenya certainly is.

    To my mind 5-ARD males, whatever their passport might say should be competing in the female category.
    I've not followed it either but aiui from the Betfair forum, the boxer was born with and still has female genitalia, so if that is the test... She's also got a pretty woeful win/loss record. But if testosterone is the criterion, then she should not be there. Then there's Freddie Mills' advice to bang your opponent on the nose, which is what happened to the Italian boxer, who was sufficiently disorientated to throw in the towel. But dyor because I can't be bothered.
    I'd have the presence of any sort of testes (Both internal/external) as the dividing criterion - as that's ultimately what provides male advantage. If (s?)he's producing testosterone in some other way then best of luck to her/him.
    & No you can't chop them off to get into the female cat.
    The point is, though, that this is clearly an area where sensible people can debate what is right and what is wrong.

    And then there's JK Rowling.
    Sadly, like the immigration debate, nearly all conversations come pre-poisoned by the lunatics.
This discussion has been closed.