If Olly runs the business with his dad he should own 50%. So the £3million exemption and 20% iht is for *half* the farm. So Ollie would only pay inheritance tax at 10% on anything above £6million. Olly can fuck right off with his sob story.
Because there is a growing trend for billionaires to use farms as a tax dodge. Getting in quick before things becomes a major issue is the kind of thing I'd like to see more of from the government.
Then target the tax dodge and not the farmers. Getting the money *out* is the tax dodge ending… so target that.
Why not target both?
Taxes should be low, flat and applied to everyone. Removing exemptions is a good thing.
And the exemption didn't exist until relatively recently anyway - people complaining about family farms that have been in the family for generations . . . well then, for generations it survived without this exemption.
For generations most farms didn't fall over the IHT threshold, however they have done for decades hence the exemption was introduced
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
It’s the pretending that no nice people will be affected that is the populism.
That’s one of the reasons that many people regard politicians as lower than whale shit at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
I am sure lots of very nice farmers will be impacted, I know some personally who will.
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay IHT.
I also have less sympathy for the loud ones who are very wealthy and keep piping up. If some more that weren't did, they would get a better traction, I expect. It's like the private schools exemption, the people that we hear shouting about it are already wealthy. The squeezed people I'd like to hear about more but they never get heard, it's just very rich people having to pay a bit more tax.
I try to be nice, should I be exempt too?
Just the usual class war from Labour, if the farmers next Tuesday cause serious disruption in central London and pour slurry all over Downing Street and Whitehall Starmer has nobody to blame but himself
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
It’s the pretending that no nice people will be affected that is the populism.
That’s one of the reasons that many people regard politicians as lower than whale shit at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
I am sure lots of very nice farmers will be impacted, I know some personally who will.
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay IHT.
I also have less sympathy for the loud ones who are very wealthy and keep piping up. If some more that weren't did, they would get a better traction, I expect. It's like the private schools exemption, the people that we hear shouting about it are already wealthy. The squeezed people I'd like to hear about more but they never get heard, it's just very rich people having to pay a bit more tax.
I try to be nice, should I be exempt too?
Just the usual class war from Labour, if the farmers next Tuesday cause serious disruption in central London and pour slurry all over Downing Street and Whitehall Starmer has nobody to blame but himself
Should I have an IHT exemption?
If you are income poor and asset rich and vital for the nation's food supply of course
If Olly runs the business with his dad he should own 50%. So the £3million exemption and 20% iht is for *half* the farm. So Ollie would only pay inheritance tax at 10% on anything above £6million. Olly can fuck right off with his sob story.
I do wonder whether Labour should be a bit more forceful about pushing back on this. "We had to make some very tough choices this budget. But this wasn't one. We do think multi millionaires can pay a bit more tax and we are determined to close down tax loopholes..."
I just think this government is a bit crap at times.
They seem to say and act in a good way on certain things, like on the NHS Streeting seems to be saying a lot of sensible stuff and it seems to be being managed fairly well and the comms are good.
And the way he pushed back on private school fees was forceful and worked well. I think he bought more advocates than detractors.
So it is baffling that for this kind of thing they can't get somebody similar.
But then I think Streeting is by far the best performer on the front bench, with a genuinely interesting story to tell.
Agreed. I think the public are ready for politicians who actually disagree with members of the public and state what they believe in. It shows strength and makes people remember what you are for.
When I hear advocates for this policy complaining about its reception, I hear “Why won’t those bloody Mexicans just pay for the wall?”
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I don't think this policy is getting a bad reception really. I'm frustrated Labour aren't defending their own policy. This is an easy to implement, money generating policy.
This is the same sort of attitude that saw New Labour cultists fall out with middle England in the mid 00s.
This new govt really seem like the fag end of Brownite rule.
'Why don't the kulaks just accept their fate' sort of politics.
Starmer really is as tin eared as he seemed. And his cabinet seem worse.
Thanks for the link and for following up the theme I raised earlier (comments passim. screen .. er .. 94).
I think they might be pushing slightly to hard on this being "out of control", as the increase from last year quoted in the Telegraph podcast I cited was 2.4%, which whatever we think is hardly out of control - and we don't really know anything from stats on a brand new Government. It's too early to tell.
I'm a little reminded of the PMQ question (This week I think? Farage?) where he cited £5bn spent on warehousing possibly illegal immigrants in 2022-3 as being a reason for having a go at the new Government, and their policies therefore being useless.
I'm concerned about these, and about how difficult it is to challenge if a Chief Constable lets it through onto the text of an Enhanced Disclosure Request for a job or charity role check. The last serious legal challenge I saw on this left unfettered discretion in place iirc. Back in the mid 2016-17 we had a Chief Constable in Notts who was an enthusiast for recording non-crime hate incidents around misogyny as a hate crime, and imo overdid it.
I think there's an element in this current shouting about "suddenly it's affecting US", and the response is somewhat misjudged. IMO there's too much emphasis on edge cases being argued as undermining the whole thing. I do have some sympathy with the Suella Braverman changes in this area, and such powers being used too readily - but to frame it all as WOKE is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If Olly runs the business with his dad he should own 50%. So the £3million exemption and 20% iht is for *half* the farm. So Ollie would only pay inheritance tax at 10% on anything above £6million. Olly can fuck right off with his sob story.
I do wonder whether Labour should be a bit more forceful about pushing back on this. "We had to make some very tough choices this budget. But this wasn't one. We do think multi millionaires can pay a bit more tax and we are determined to close down tax loopholes..."
I just think this government is a bit crap at times.
They seem to say and act in a good way on certain things, like on the NHS Streeting seems to be saying a lot of sensible stuff and it seems to be being managed fairly well and the comms are good.
And the way he pushed back on private school fees was forceful and worked well. I think he bought more advocates than detractors.
So it is baffling that for this kind of thing they can't get somebody similar.
But then I think Streeting is by far the best performer on the front bench, with a genuinely interesting story to tell.
Agreed. I think the public are ready for politicians who actually disagree with members of the public and state what they believe in. It shows strength and makes people remember what you are for.
When I hear advocates for this policy complaining about its reception, I hear “Why won’t those bloody Mexicans just pay for the wall?”
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I don't think this policy is getting a bad reception really. I'm frustrated Labour aren't defending their own policy. This is an easy to implement, money generating policy.
This is the same sort of attitude that saw New Labour cultists fall out with middle England in the mid 00s.
This new govt really seem like the fag end of Brownite rule.
'Why don't the kulaks just accept their fate' sort of politics.
Starmer really is as tin eared as he seemed. And his cabinet seem worse.
Indeed the massive over 30% decline in Labour's voteshare in the Chipping Norton by election last night relative to May which saw Labour lose the seat and collapse to 3rd behind the LDs and Tories is a huge warning that rural communities and farmers will take their revenge brutally on Labour councillors and Labour MPs in rural seats
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
It’s the pretending that no nice people will be affected that is the populism.
That’s one of the reasons that many people regard politicians as lower than whale shit at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
I don't see how this is populism though. It's just something you don't personally like?
Haven’t you noticed the fun bit of
1) no farmers will be harmed, they can just tax plan. And not pay any tax! 2) the evil tax avoiders will have to pay tax.
I would define populist policies as
1) Simple, easy. Obvious. 2) Free, or raise tons of money painlessly. 3) No side effects. To anyone we like, that is.
The populist policy would be to avoid raising any taxes, or even cut some and pretend we can afford it. You won't find any Labour ministers saying no farmers will be harmed.
White dudes for Harris was a real phenomenon it seems.
"In 2024, Kamala Harris did worse among Black voters than Joe Biden did in 2020. She did worse among female voters. She did much worse among Latino voters. She did much worse among young voters.
She did manage to outperform Biden among two groups: affluent people and white voters, especially white men. If there is one sentence that captures the surprising results of this election, it is this one from the sociologist Musa al-Gharbi: “Democrats lost because everyone except for whites moved in the direction of Donald Trump this cycle.” Going into this campaign, I did not have that one on my bingo card."
But let’s not confuse the change with the raw scores. More white men voted Trump, more black men voted Harris, more women voted Harris, more Latinos voted Harris.
That's true. On the other hand if Harris had scraped over the line it would have been possible to say it was because of a positive swing from white men.
Thanks for the link and for following up the theme I raised earlier (comments passim. screen .. er .. 94).
I think they might be pushing slightly to hard on this being "out of control", as the increase from last year quoted in the Telegraph podcast I cited was 2.4%, which whatever we think is hardly out of control - and we don't really know anything from stats on a brand new Government. It's too early to tell.
I'm a little reminded of the PMQ question (This week I think? Farage?) where he cited £5bn spent on warehousing possibly illegal immigrants in 2022-3 as being a reason for having a go at the new Government, and their policies therefore being useless.
I'm concerned about these, and about how difficult it is to challenge if a Chief Constable lets it through onto the text of an Enhanced Disclosure Request for a job or charity role check. The last serious legal challenge I saw on this left unfettered discretion in place iirc. Back in the mid 2016-17 we had a Chief Constable in Notts who was an enthusiast for recording non-crime hate incidents around misogyny as a hate crime, and imo overdid it.
I think there's an element in this current shouting about "suddenly it's affecting US", and the response is somewhat misjudged. IMO there's too much emphasis on edge cases being argued as undermining the whole thing. I do have some sympathy with the Suella Braverman changes in this area, and such powers being used too readily - but to frame it all as WOKE is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We'll see.
I don't think they should exist at all. If it isn't a crime, the police shouldn't be investigating it. Investigating non-crimes is the sort of thing the Stasi used to do.
Thanks for the link and for following up the theme I raised earlier (comments passim. screen .. er .. 94).
I think they might be pushing slightly to hard on this being "out of control", as the increase from last year quoted in the Telegraph podcast I cited was 2.4%, which whatever we think is hardly out of control - and we don't really know anything from stats on a brand new Government. It's too early to tell.
I'm a little reminded of the PMQ question (This week I think? Farage?) where he cited £5bn spent on warehousing possibly illegal immigrants in 2022-3 as being a reason for having a go at the new Government, and their policies therefore being useless.
I'm concerned about these, and about how difficult it is to challenge if a Chief Constable lets it through onto the text of an Enhanced Disclosure Request for a job or charity role check. The last serious legal challenge I saw on this left unfettered discretion in place iirc. Back in the mid 2016-17 we had a Chief Constable in Notts who was an enthusiast for recording non-crime hate incidents around misogyny as a hate crime, and imo overdid it.
I think there's an element in this current shouting about "suddenly it's affecting US", and the response is somewhat misjudged. IMO there's too much emphasis on edge cases being argued as undermining the whole thing. I do have some sympathy with the Suella Braverman changes in this area, and such powers being used too readily - but to frame it all as WOKE is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We'll see.
I don't think they should exist at all. If it isn't a crime, the police shouldn't be investigating it. Investigating non-crimes is the sort of thing the Stasi used to do.
That begs at least one question - how do you find out if it is a crime without investigating it? It's fraught with gradations and grey areas.
I don't think you can be quite that purist on this, since non-criminal behaviour may be a valid indicator of possible future crimes. For example aggressive but not illegal behaviour towards a partner, or a child or stepchild. And there are grey areas around 'hate incidents' and 'non-criminal incidents' which need to be within the compass of intelligence-led policing.
To me, it's about getting the categories and the dividing lines in the right places. And the devil is in the detail.
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
For the umpteenth time, the APR is not a tax break. It’s an investment. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - APR is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing shortages. The farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills, APR protects those jobs from foreign competition. The APR goes toward looking after nature, our habitats and environment, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink. The APR helps to look after an industry bringing in £130B to UK economy.
Now can you see Labour axing it, because you and they only understand it as unnecessary tax exemption in this situation, is actually completely unnecessary boneheaded vandalism?
If you listen to the right wingers on PB - honest Pirates like Barty, who don’t believe money should be thrown at UK agriculture to shape the prices in supermarkets instead let the consumer choose antopeadian or British lamb themselves, is to me rather warped view of what capitalism is - because when market place turns to dominance, cartels and lack of choice, you don’t actually have capitalism, it died when the market and competition and choice died, so of course capitalist governments must intervene - and ignore the simpleton views like from kyf100 who can only see Labours APR axing as a tribal, partisan and ideological. Instead listen to me, is not what I have described in para 1 not worth government forms of investment, by every nation state in the world irrespective of domestic politics and economics?
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
For the umpteenth time, the APR is not a tax break. It’s an investment. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - APR is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing shortages. The farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills, APR protects those jobs from foreign competition. The APR goes toward looking after nature, our habitats and environment, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink. The APR helps to look after an industry bringing in £130B to UK economy.
Now can you see Labour axing it, because you and they only understand it as unnecessary tax exemption in this situation, is actually completely unnecessary boneheaded vandalism?
If you listen to the right wingers on PB - honest Pirates like Barty, who don’t believe money should be thrown at UK agriculture to shape the prices in supermarkets instead let the consumer choose antopeadian or British lamb themselves, is to me rather warped view of what capitalism is - because when market place turns to dominance, cartels and lack of choice, you don’t actually have capitalism, it died when the market and competition and choice died, so of course capitalist governments must intervene - and ignore the simpleton views like from kyf100 who can only see Labours APR axing as a tribal, partisan and ideological. Instead listen to me, is not what I have described in para 1 not worth government forms of investment, by every nation state in the world irrespective of domestic politics and economics?
It is tribal, partisan and ideological.
Just like their attack on people who send their children to private school, with the imposition of VAT.
Just like their attack on investors with the CGT hike (while keeping landlord CGT the same and maintaining the exemption for primary homes).
Just like their attack on the private sector, by raising Employer's NI and lowering the threshold.
If Olly runs the business with his dad he should own 50%. So the £3million exemption and 20% iht is for *half* the farm. So Ollie would only pay inheritance tax at 10% on anything above £6million. Olly can fuck right off with his sob story.
I do wonder whether Labour should be a bit more forceful about pushing back on this. "We had to make some very tough choices this budget. But this wasn't one. We do think multi millionaires can pay a bit more tax and we are determined to close down tax loopholes..."
I just think this government is a bit crap at times.
They seem to say and act in a good way on certain things, like on the NHS Streeting seems to be saying a lot of sensible stuff and it seems to be being managed fairly well and the comms are good.
And the way he pushed back on private school fees was forceful and worked well. I think he bought more advocates than detractors.
So it is baffling that for this kind of thing they can't get somebody similar.
But then I think Streeting is by far the best performer on the front bench, with a genuinely interesting story to tell.
Agreed. I think the public are ready for politicians who actually disagree with members of the public and state what they believe in. It shows strength and makes people remember what you are for.
When I hear advocates for this policy complaining about its reception, I hear “Why won’t those bloody Mexicans just pay for the wall?”
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
The tragedy is that populism wouldn't exist at all as a significant force if a few very simple and obvious policies had been followed over the years and decades.
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
For the umpteenth time, the APR is not a tax break. It’s an investment. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - APR is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing shortages. The farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills, APR protects those jobs from foreign competition. The APR goes toward looking after nature, our habitats and environment, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink. The APR helps to look after an industry bringing in £130B to UK economy.
Now can you see Labour axing it, because you and they only understand it as unnecessary tax exemption in this situation, is actually completely unnecessary boneheaded vandalism?
If you listen to the right wingers on PB - honest Pirates like Barty, who don’t believe money should be thrown at UK agriculture to shape the prices in supermarkets instead let the consumer choose antopeadian or British lamb themselves, is to me rather warped view of what capitalism is - because when market place turns to dominance, cartels and lack of choice, you don’t actually have capitalism, it died when the market and competition and choice died, so of course capitalist governments must intervene - and ignore the simpleton views like from kyf100 who can only see Labours APR axing as a tribal, partisan and ideological. Instead listen to me, is not what I have described in para 1 not worth government forms of investment, by every nation state in the world irrespective of domestic politics and economics?
How will axing the tax break affect agricultural production?
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
For the umpteenth time, the APR is not a tax break. It’s an investment. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - APR is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing shortages. The farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills, APR protects those jobs from foreign competition. The APR goes toward looking after nature, our habitats and environment, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink. The APR helps to look after an industry bringing in £130B to UK economy.
Now can you see Labour axing it, because you and they only understand it as unnecessary tax exemption in this situation, is actually completely unnecessary boneheaded vandalism?
If you listen to the right wingers on PB - honest Pirates like Barty, who don’t believe money should be thrown at UK agriculture to shape the prices in supermarkets instead let the consumer choose antopeadian or British lamb themselves, is to me rather warped view of what capitalism is - because when market place turns to dominance, cartels and lack of choice, you don’t actually have capitalism, it died when the market and competition and choice died, so of course capitalist governments must intervene - and ignore the simpleton views like from kyf100 who can only see Labours APR axing as a tribal, partisan and ideological. Instead listen to me, is not what I have described in para 1 not worth government forms of investment, by every nation state in the world irrespective of domestic politics and economics?
It is tribal, partisan and ideological.
Just like their attack on people who send their children to private school, with the imposition of VAT.
Just like their attack on investors with the CGT hike (while keeping landlord CGT the same and maintaining the exemption for primary homes).
Just like their attack on the private sector, by raising Employer's NI and lowering the threshold.
Labour's aim is to punish people they don't like.
So self assured about your own politics , you don’t really don’t understand my argument or politics at all, that’s been quite clear all week. 😕To me tribal, partisan and ideology is when someone see’s a wall they don’t like, and wants it down - like the Berlin Wall for example. So you see this as battle of wills to bring down that wall, kill the APR or lose tilting at it.
Convinced in your own mind this Labour government deliberately wants to make it harder for local people to afford homes locally, this Labour government wants to hurt British Farming communities and their output, wants to see UK products disappear from the supermarkets, actually wants to see small family farms struggle and sold on to bigger richer concerns with less concern for environment, Labour actually want an industry employing 4 million in labour and trade to shrink - you don’t understand the difference between accident and design in policy making. What you are calling left wing ideological, can be identical accidents waiting in design by right wing ideologues too, as I have frequently very clearly explained.
But that’s never where the greatest dangers come in politics. This is more “kill all sparrows” than ideological.
Labour don’t realise the damage their actions will do to so many things they don’t want to see go wrong. As I explained the other day, the whole of their recent budget is very much like that. This is not ideology, it’s inherent vice. So the wall comes down in spite of what they really want to happen.
Because the reality is we really shouldn’t view political opponents as in league with devils, but know the road to hell is always paved by people with good intentions. If we can only explain APR in strictly transactional terms like you are, it’s exactly what the DaftHorseBat wants to hear us say, and see on front of Telegraph and Daily Mail. They want to think of themselves as clever and effective enacting such transactional change, the reason for this governments existence as both you and they are regarding it - not slow witless and ignorant of unintended consequences hurting their own intentions, as I am calling them out.
When I read that section of Toll's trilogy recently, I came to this tentative conclusion: In the Manila Massacre, you can blame the Japanese soldiers there, and their commanders, but not the Japanese government, at least directly. The soldiers were not "just following orders".
In fact, if I recall correctly, the man who was technically in command of all the Japanese army forces in the Philippines, actually ordered the forces in Manila to withdraw from the city. That doesn't make the actions less evil, but it does change -- somewhat -- where the worst blame should be directed.
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
For the umpteenth time, the APR is not a tax break. It’s an investment. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - APR is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing shortages. The farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills, APR protects those jobs from foreign competition. The APR goes toward looking after nature, our habitats and environment, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink. The APR helps to look after an industry bringing in £130B to UK economy.
Now can you see Labour axing it, because you and they only understand it as unnecessary tax exemption in this situation, is actually completely unnecessary boneheaded vandalism?
If you listen to the right wingers on PB - honest Pirates like Barty, who don’t believe money should be thrown at UK agriculture to shape the prices in supermarkets instead let the consumer choose antopeadian or British lamb themselves, is to me rather warped view of what capitalism is - because when market place turns to dominance, cartels and lack of choice, you don’t actually have capitalism, it died when the market and competition and choice died, so of course capitalist governments must intervene - and ignore the simpleton views like from kyf100 who can only see Labours APR axing as a tribal, partisan and ideological. Instead listen to me, is not what I have described in para 1 not worth government forms of investment, by every nation state in the world irrespective of domestic politics and economics?
How will axing the tax break affect agricultural production?
The purpose of APR is not inheritance tax break.
I can so easily satisfy your question. The answer is very obvious actually, and straightforward.
Think of birds eating spiders, it’s like that. The people who introduced it were thinking just like that. No spiders, no birds.
APR is an enabler for planning and investment. And it helps farms stay with those who can continue to produce food and care for the countryside. And it of course helps those who need them to be there.
What appears to be feeding spiders, is stopping all the birds disappearing.
Alternatively think it as sparrows eating locust larvae
Has anyone else read the history of Manila as the Japanese were pushed out by the Americans in 1945?
I confess I has no idea. It’s as bad - perhaps worse in its wanton pointless intensity - as the Rape of Nanking
For a start the Japanese made sure to destroy “the most beautiful city in the orient” - Manila was a Spanish colonial pearl
Worse; the Japanese decided to exterminate - there is no other word - pretty much the entire civilian population. Every living non Japanese person. Men women children babies. Herded into buildings that were then exploded or burned. Thousands of rapes - the girls then killed. Mass beheadings
Perhaps 100,000 died in a matter of days
Great book on this subject. But a tough tough read
Has anyone else read the history of Manila as the Japanese were pushed out by the Americans in 1945?
I confess I has no idea. It’s as bad - perhaps worse in its wanton pointless intensity - as the Rape of Nanking
For a start the Japanese made sure to destroy “the most beautiful city in the orient” - Manila was a Spanish colonial pearl
Worse; the Japanese decided to exterminate - there is no other word - pretty much the entire civilian population. Every living non Japanese person. Men women children babies. Herded into buildings that were then exploded or burned. Thousands of rapes - the girls then killed. Mass beheadings
Perhaps 100,000 died in a matter of days
Great book on this subject. But a tough tough read
Typhoo Tea is set to appoint administrators as the 120-year-old brand's sales slump, losses widen and debts rise.
The company has filed a notice at court "which affords the company some breathing space to explore solutions", Typhoo's chief executive Dave McNulty told the BBC.
The firm has been trying to turn itself around for some time.
However, it suffered a setback after trespassers damaged its former factory in Moreton, Merseyside last year.
Yorkshire Tea (which is better) has just pipped them.
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
I just stand by the fact that farmers shouldn't have a tax exemption. They haven't had one forever, this is a very recent thing.
But then I think fuel duty freeze and the triple lock should both go too.
For the umpteenth time, the APR is not a tax break. It’s an investment. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - APR is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing shortages. The farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills, APR protects those jobs from foreign competition. The APR goes toward looking after nature, our habitats and environment, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink. The APR helps to look after an industry bringing in £130B to UK economy.
Now can you see Labour axing it, because you and they only understand it as unnecessary tax exemption in this situation, is actually completely unnecessary boneheaded vandalism?
If you listen to the right wingers on PB - honest Pirates like Barty, who don’t believe money should be thrown at UK agriculture to shape the prices in supermarkets instead let the consumer choose antopeadian or British lamb themselves, is to me rather warped view of what capitalism is - because when market place turns to dominance, cartels and lack of choice, you don’t actually have capitalism, it died when the market and competition and choice died, so of course capitalist governments must intervene - and ignore the simpleton views like from kyf100 who can only see Labours APR axing as a tribal, partisan and ideological. Instead listen to me, is not what I have described in para 1 not worth government forms of investment, by every nation state in the world irrespective of domestic politics and economics?
It is tribal, partisan and ideological.
Just like their attack on people who send their children to private school, with the imposition of VAT.
Just like their attack on investors with the CGT hike (while keeping landlord CGT the same and maintaining the exemption for primary homes).
Just like their attack on the private sector, by raising Employer's NI and lowering the threshold.
Labour's aim is to punish people they don't like.
It's not 'punishment' is it? It's just a fact that all governments have a tendency to raise taxes/cut spending on those who aren't their natural supporters. It's "tribal, partisan and ideological" when the side you don't like does it, and practical tough decisions when it's your side. Some people just got so used to 14 years of a Tory government that hit other people while protecting them from even limited pain, they're now crying about it like babies.
Labour faced public finances in a state and so faced a choice - do they badly disappoint supporters who'll claim betrayal, or scrape around to get what extra money they can while signalling that the pain is shared and they can fulfil promises to some extent. From that perspective it's a no brainer to look to people who by any estimation are among the wealthiest cohort in the country and don't tend to vote Labour.
That's politics, it's about priorities and isn't going to be fair in that someone will be hit by any tax change or spending shift. You can equally look at things Labour would clearly love to do but won't go near for practical and electoral reasons to show aren't being more tribal and partisan than any government.
Meanwhile, if you want someone to blame for the rise in employer's NI it's Jeremy Hunt - who made the reckless decision to cut employees' NI as a pre-election bribe and trap for Labour. Whose answer to get out of the pickle it presented them has been to raise it on employers so they can fill the hole while not technically raising taxes on ordinary working people.
That might well be a wrong decision economically, but it's fairly obvious why they did it politically - and if you're looking for someone to blame it's the Tories for abandoning economic sobriety in favour of playing political games.
Thanks for the link and for following up the theme I raised earlier (comments passim. screen .. er .. 94).
I think they might be pushing slightly to hard on this being "out of control", as the increase from last year quoted in the Telegraph podcast I cited was 2.4%, which whatever we think is hardly out of control - and we don't really know anything from stats on a brand new Government. It's too early to tell.
I'm a little reminded of the PMQ question (This week I think? Farage?) where he cited £5bn spent on warehousing possibly illegal immigrants in 2022-3 as being a reason for having a go at the new Government, and their policies therefore being useless.
I'm concerned about these, and about how difficult it is to challenge if a Chief Constable lets it through onto the text of an Enhanced Disclosure Request for a job or charity role check. The last serious legal challenge I saw on this left unfettered discretion in place iirc. Back in the mid 2016-17 we had a Chief Constable in Notts who was an enthusiast for recording non-crime hate incidents around misogyny as a hate crime, and imo overdid it.
I think there's an element in this current shouting about "suddenly it's affecting US", and the response is somewhat misjudged. IMO there's too much emphasis on edge cases being argued as undermining the whole thing. I do have some sympathy with the Suella Braverman changes in this area, and such powers being used too readily - but to frame it all as WOKE is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We'll see.
I don't think they should exist at all. If it isn't a crime, the police shouldn't be investigating it. Investigating non-crimes is the sort of thing the Stasi used to do.
There are plenty of normal crimes the police could and should investigate, like burglary or assault.
Much easier to go and knock on the door of someone middle-class about bad words though.
If Olly runs the business with his dad he should own 50%. So the £3million exemption and 20% iht is for *half* the farm. So Ollie would only pay inheritance tax at 10% on anything above £6million. Olly can fuck right off with his sob story.
I do wonder whether Labour should be a bit more forceful about pushing back on this. "We had to make some very tough choices this budget. But this wasn't one. We do think multi millionaires can pay a bit more tax and we are determined to close down tax loopholes..."
I just think this government is a bit crap at times.
They seem to say and act in a good way on certain things, like on the NHS Streeting seems to be saying a lot of sensible stuff and it seems to be being managed fairly well and the comms are good.
And the way he pushed back on private school fees was forceful and worked well. I think he bought more advocates than detractors.
So it is baffling that for this kind of thing they can't get somebody similar.
But then I think Streeting is by far the best performer on the front bench, with a genuinely interesting story to tell.
Agreed. I think the public are ready for politicians who actually disagree with members of the public and state what they believe in. It shows strength and makes people remember what you are for.
When I hear advocates for this policy complaining about its reception, I hear “Why won’t those bloody Mexicans just pay for the wall?”
Populism - policies that are simple, easy to implement, cost nothing and only harm people we don’t like.
The tragedy is that populism wouldn't exist at all as a significant force if a few very simple and obvious policies had been followed over the years and decades.
Good question. The problem is that most of us Brits are so passive we allow things like this to creep up on us when people from other countries such as the USA would have protested about it a lot earlier. We don't like to make a fuss and hope it'll all go away by itself.
Good question. The problem is that most of us Brits are so passive we allow things like this to creep up on us when people from other countries such as the USA would have protested about it a lot earlier. We don't like to make a fuss and hope it'll all go away by itself.
Couple of things:
(1) It probably aligns with EDI culture, which has infected the police like almost everywhere else - it was Allison Pearson, who's no shrinking violet
(2) It's probably an easier "crime" to both 'detect' and 'clear up', thus improving individual and force performance stats and at a little to no risk to the officers concerned
Show me the incentive and I'll show you the behaviour.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
Either something is a crime or it is not. If the latter, it is no business of the police.
That doesn't really work, as it undermines the existence of police intelligence - which is about things which are not "crimes". Until suddenly they are followed by things which are crimes.
Those in the Spectator / Telegraph silo pretending it is all about them need to give their heads a wobble.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
It’s totally nuts that it’s taken them 10 days to still not finish counting. They knew it was going to be a 50/50 race well in advance.
I do wonder if SKS will resign perhaps in 2028 and let Wes Streeting or Reeves take over.
It won't be because he's forced out though, just because he'll be rather old by then.
Possible but unlikely I think. Most PMs want a second term. It's a very demanding job, but it's obviously more fun than being in opposition...
Starmer will step down voluntarily imo. Politics is very much his second career, and he is also older than most recent PMs (62 now, so 66 by a 2028 or 29 general election). He will want to go out on his own terms, and not be forced out like most of his recent predecessors. There is no great personal project to complete. The only question is whether Starmer will come to believe, like Joe Biden, that only he can win the election.
Found down a rabbit hole, written by Alistair Campbell, of the World Cup in 2006:
Thursday, 8 Jun 2006 So here we go. After all the build up, the billions of words spoken and written, in a few hours the World Cup starts as Germany take on Costa Rica.
Within a matter of few days, we will have that four yearly rash of women newspaper columnists suddenly imagining that the world needs to know their views on Ronaldinho, or how confused they get that there is a Ronaldo playing for Brazil and another playing for Portugal, who have a Brazilian manager who almost came to England but it never happened because England have to have an English manager but isn't it very confusing because at the moment they have a Swede in charge with a glamorous girlfriend and what a coincidence that England will play Sweden in the opening stages.
Blah, blah, blah. Memo to columnists who have never been to a football match - we don't care what you think. Take a holiday.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
It’s totally nuts that it’s taken them 10 days to still not finish counting. They knew it was going to be a 50/50 race well in advance.
Found down a rabbit hole, written by Alistair Campbell, of the World Cup in 2006:
Thursday, 8 Jun 2006 So here we go. After all the build up, the billions of words spoken and written, in a few hours the World Cup starts as Germany take on Costa Rica.
Within a matter of few days, we will have that four yearly rash of women newspaper columnists suddenly imagining that the world needs to know their views on Ronaldinho, or how confused they get that there is a Ronaldo playing for Brazil and another playing for Portugal, who have a Brazilian manager who almost came to England but it never happened because England have to have an English manager but isn't it very confusing because at the moment they have a Swede in charge with a glamorous girlfriend and what a coincidence that England will play Sweden in the opening stages.
Blah, blah, blah. Memo to columnists who have never been to a football match - we don't care what you think. Take a holiday.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
It’s totally nuts that it’s taken them 10 days to still not finish counting. They knew it was going to be a 50/50 race well in advance.
PA senate race is still in question.
Actually the count ended yesterday but is being livestreamed by Netflix.
Either something is a crime or it is not. If the latter, it is no business of the police.
That doesn't really work, as it undermines the existence of police intelligence - which is about things which are not "crimes". Until suddenly they are followed by things which are crimes.
Those in the Spectator / Telegraph silo pretending it is all about them need to give their heads a wobble.
This isn't about police intelligence. You can have your file marked with a NCHI, affecting your prospects of employment, without ever knowing why or having any recourse to challenge it.
Lots of stuff apparently happening in Georgia. The 'president' of Abkhazia, the region Russia ripped away from Geirgia in the 2008 war, has allegedly fled to a military air base.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
It’s totally nuts that it’s taken them 10 days to still not finish counting. They knew it was going to be a 50/50 race well in advance.
PA senate race is still in question.
That’s been called for McCormick, although there’s only going to be around 20,000 votes in it.
Countries are mad to deploy expensive aircraft carriers anywhere where they don't have overwhelming superiority already, unless they are being invaded or something.
I do wonder if SKS will resign perhaps in 2028 and let Wes Streeting or Reeves take over.
It won't be because he's forced out though, just because he'll be rather old by then.
Possible but unlikely I think. Most PMs want a second term. It's a very demanding job, but it's obviously more fun than being in opposition...
Starmer will step down voluntarily imo. Politics is very much his second career, and he is also older than most recent PMs (62 now, so 66 by a 2028 or 29 general election). He will want to go out on his own terms, and not be forced out like most of his recent predecessors. There is no great personal project to complete. The only question is whether Starmer will come to believe, like Joe Biden, that only he can win the election.
Yes, I think he will go in 2028, with a fresh leader unless there is a massive swing back in the polling.
I reckon Phillipson though. Reeves and Streeting annoy too many in his own party.
I do wonder if SKS will resign perhaps in 2028 and let Wes Streeting or Reeves take over.
It won't be because he's forced out though, just because he'll be rather old by then.
Possible but unlikely I think. Most PMs want a second term. It's a very demanding job, but it's obviously more fun than being in opposition...
Starmer will step down voluntarily imo. Politics is very much his second career, and he is also older than most recent PMs (62 now, so 66 by a 2028 or 29 general election). He will want to go out on his own terms, and not be forced out like most of his recent predecessors. There is no great personal project to complete. The only question is whether Starmer will come to believe, like Joe Biden, that only he can win the election.
Yes, I think he will go in 2028, with a fresh leader unless there is a massive swing back in the polling.
I reckon Phillipson though. Reeves and Streeting annoy too many in his own party.
Phillipson is most unlikely to make it to 2028. There are already major rumblings over the curriculum review which could sink her. Even if it doesn’t, the constant falling further behind on recruitment and retention of teachers is going to be - problematic.
Jake Paul wins on points by a unanimous decision. The loser is the noble art. And Netflix.
The best fight review. Jake Paul, a 27-year-old social media huckster, beat a 58-year-old man with a long history of health problems, both physically and mentally, in a boxing ring late on Friday night.
Jake Paul wins on points by a unanimous decision. The loser is the noble art. And Netflix.
The best fight review. Jake Paul, a 27-year-old social media huckster, beat a 58-year-old man with a long history of health problems, both physically and mentally, in a boxing ring late on Friday night.
Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist.
Curiously, that seems to have bee forgotten by all the 'men' hyperventilating over the fight.
Lots of stuff apparently happening in Georgia. The 'president' of Abkhazia, the region Russia ripped away from Geirgia in the 2008 war, has allegedly fled to a military air base.
I had a nice Georgian meal at Kartuli in Wast Dulwich last night for my birthday. Semi-sweet chilled Saperavi and a chacha.
It’s thoroughly depressing to watch what’s been happening to Georgia. Nevermind Abkhazia, the whole country has been administratively captured by Russia in the same Ukraine was being under Yanukovich.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
On IHT and APR the protests could have been easily avoided through grandfathering provisions.
Apply it only to estates purchased in the past 10 years. Anything before then retains the full exemption. That means you are not capturing any family farms, only billionaire tax planning.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
Not watched the fight and now probably won't. I made the classic boxing mistake of taking for granted that the other guy is thinking just as hard about it as the first guy.
Primary allied navies have 14 x carriers: 11 x American, 1 x French and 2x British.
In theory with a large protective surface fleet that should be able to support major operations anywhere but we've seen what happened to the Russians in the Black Sea.
Missiles and drones would be a constant problem. I wouldn't want to be on one of those ships.
Thanks for the link and for following up the theme I raised earlier (comments passim. screen .. er .. 94).
I think they might be pushing slightly to hard on this being "out of control", as the increase from last year quoted in the Telegraph podcast I cited was 2.4%, which whatever we think is hardly out of control - and we don't really know anything from stats on a brand new Government. It's too early to tell.
I'm a little reminded of the PMQ question (This week I think? Farage?) where he cited £5bn spent on warehousing possibly illegal immigrants in 2022-3 as being a reason for having a go at the new Government, and their policies therefore being useless.
I'm concerned about these, and about how difficult it is to challenge if a Chief Constable lets it through onto the text of an Enhanced Disclosure Request for a job or charity role check. The last serious legal challenge I saw on this left unfettered discretion in place iirc. Back in the mid 2016-17 we had a Chief Constable in Notts who was an enthusiast for recording non-crime hate incidents around misogyny as a hate crime, and imo overdid it.
I think there's an element in this current shouting about "suddenly it's affecting US", and the response is somewhat misjudged. IMO there's too much emphasis on edge cases being argued as undermining the whole thing. I do have some sympathy with the Suella Braverman changes in this area, and such powers being used too readily - but to frame it all as WOKE is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We'll see.
I don't think they should exist at all. If it isn't a crime, the police shouldn't be investigating it. Investigating non-crimes is the sort of thing the Stasi used to do.
That begs at least one question - how do you find out if it is a crime without investigating it? It's fraught with gradations and grey areas.
I don't think you can be quite that purist on this, since non-criminal behaviour may be a valid indicator of possible future crimes. For example aggressive but not illegal behaviour towards a partner, or a child or stepchild. And there are grey areas around 'hate incidents' and 'non-criminal incidents' which need to be within the compass of intelligence-led policing.
To me, it's about getting the categories and the dividing lines in the right places. And the devil is in the detail.
The statements being made around the Allison Pearson incident are not around wanting abolition, but what they see as more appropriate use.
In an old sore - the answer to abuse or wrong use, is right use, not disuse.
The police are now saying that Allison Pearson is lying and they have the bodyworn-camera footage to prove it. That is, at no time did they say this was about a non-crime-hate-incident.
I do wonder if SKS will resign perhaps in 2028 and let Wes Streeting or Reeves take over.
It won't be because he's forced out though, just because he'll be rather old by then.
Possible but unlikely I think. Most PMs want a second term. It's a very demanding job, but it's obviously more fun than being in opposition...
Starmer will step down voluntarily imo. Politics is very much his second career, and he is also older than most recent PMs (62 now, so 66 by a 2028 or 29 general election). He will want to go out on his own terms, and not be forced out like most of his recent predecessors. There is no great personal project to complete. The only question is whether Starmer will come to believe, like Joe Biden, that only he can win the election.
Yes, I think he will go in 2028, with a fresh leader unless there is a massive swing back in the polling.
I reckon Phillipson though. Reeves and Streeting annoy too many in his own party.
Thanks for the link and for following up the theme I raised earlier (comments passim. screen .. er .. 94).
I think they might be pushing slightly to hard on this being "out of control", as the increase from last year quoted in the Telegraph podcast I cited was 2.4%, which whatever we think is hardly out of control - and we don't really know anything from stats on a brand new Government. It's too early to tell.
I'm a little reminded of the PMQ question (This week I think? Farage?) where he cited £5bn spent on warehousing possibly illegal immigrants in 2022-3 as being a reason for having a go at the new Government, and their policies therefore being useless.
I'm concerned about these, and about how difficult it is to challenge if a Chief Constable lets it through onto the text of an Enhanced Disclosure Request for a job or charity role check. The last serious legal challenge I saw on this left unfettered discretion in place iirc. Back in the mid 2016-17 we had a Chief Constable in Notts who was an enthusiast for recording non-crime hate incidents around misogyny as a hate crime, and imo overdid it.
I think there's an element in this current shouting about "suddenly it's affecting US", and the response is somewhat misjudged. IMO there's too much emphasis on edge cases being argued as undermining the whole thing. I do have some sympathy with the Suella Braverman changes in this area, and such powers being used too readily - but to frame it all as WOKE is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We'll see.
I don't think they should exist at all. If it isn't a crime, the police shouldn't be investigating it. Investigating non-crimes is the sort of thing the Stasi used to do.
That begs at least one question - how do you find out if it is a crime without investigating it? It's fraught with gradations and grey areas.
I don't think you can be quite that purist on this, since non-criminal behaviour may be a valid indicator of possible future crimes. For example aggressive but not illegal behaviour towards a partner, or a child or stepchild. And there are grey areas around 'hate incidents' and 'non-criminal incidents' which need to be within the compass of intelligence-led policing.
To me, it's about getting the categories and the dividing lines in the right places. And the devil is in the detail.
The statements being made around the Allison Pearson incident are not around wanting abolition, but what they see as more appropriate use.
In an old sore - the answer to abuse or wrong use, is right use, not disuse.
The police are now saying that Allison Pearson is lying and they have the bodyworn-camera footage to prove it. That is, at no time did they say this was about a non-crime-hate-incident.
You need to be slightly careful about what the police 'say' in these sorts of cases. Andrew Mitchell says 'Hi!'.
Jake Paul wins on points by a unanimous decision. The loser is the noble art. And Netflix.
The best fight review. Jake Paul, a 27-year-old social media huckster, beat a 58-year-old man with a long history of health problems, both physically and mentally, in a boxing ring late on Friday night.
Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist.
Curiously, that seems to have bee forgotten by all the 'men' hyperventilating over the fight.
And the US elected Trump, who appointed Gaetz. Sadly, this is the world we now live in.
Comments
This new govt really seem like the fag end of Brownite rule.
'Why don't the kulaks just accept their fate' sort of politics.
Starmer really is as tin eared as he seemed. And his cabinet seem worse.
I think they might be pushing slightly to hard on this being "out of control", as the increase from last year quoted in the Telegraph podcast I cited was 2.4%, which whatever we think is hardly out of control - and we don't really know anything from stats on a brand new Government. It's too early to tell.
I'm a little reminded of the PMQ question (This week I think? Farage?) where he cited £5bn spent on warehousing possibly illegal immigrants in 2022-3 as being a reason for having a go at the new Government, and their policies therefore being useless.
I'm concerned about these, and about how difficult it is to challenge if a Chief Constable lets it through onto the text of an Enhanced Disclosure Request for a job or charity role check. The last serious legal challenge I saw on this left unfettered discretion in place iirc. Back in the mid 2016-17 we had a Chief Constable in Notts who was an enthusiast for recording non-crime hate incidents around misogyny as a hate crime, and imo overdid it.
I think there's an element in this current shouting about "suddenly it's affecting US", and the response is somewhat misjudged. IMO there's too much emphasis on edge cases being argued as undermining the whole thing. I do have some sympathy with the Suella Braverman changes in this area, and such powers being used too readily - but to frame it all as WOKE is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We'll see.
You won't find any Labour ministers saying no farmers will be harmed.
I don't think you can be quite that purist on this, since non-criminal behaviour may be a valid indicator of possible future crimes. For example aggressive but not illegal behaviour towards a partner, or a child or stepchild. And there are grey areas around 'hate incidents' and 'non-criminal incidents' which need to be within the compass of intelligence-led policing.
To me, it's about getting the categories and the dividing lines in the right places. And the devil is in the detail.
Even Suella Braverman did not try and abolish the system completely. Here's her Code of Practice:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice-on-the-recording-and-retention-of-personal-data-accessible
The statements being made around the Allison Pearson incident are not around wanting abolition, but what they see as more appropriate use.
In an old sore - the answer to abuse or wrong use, is right use, not disuse.
Now can you see Labour axing it, because you and they only understand it as unnecessary tax exemption in this situation, is actually completely unnecessary boneheaded vandalism?
If you listen to the right wingers on PB - honest Pirates like Barty, who don’t believe money should be thrown at UK agriculture to shape the prices in supermarkets instead let the consumer choose antopeadian or British lamb themselves, is to me rather warped view of what capitalism is - because when market place turns to dominance, cartels and lack of choice, you don’t actually have capitalism, it died when the market and competition and choice died, so of course capitalist governments must intervene - and ignore the simpleton views like from kyf100 who can only see Labours APR axing as a tribal, partisan and ideological. Instead listen to me, is not what I have described in para 1 not worth government forms of investment, by every nation state in the world irrespective of domestic politics and economics?
Just like their attack on people who send their children to private school, with the imposition of VAT.
Just like their attack on investors with the CGT hike (while keeping landlord CGT the same and maintaining the exemption for primary homes).
Just like their attack on the private sector, by raising Employer's NI and lowering the threshold.
Labour's aim is to punish people they don't like.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?admin1=24&election-data-id=2024-PG&selected-election-data-id=2024-PG-MD&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false
Convinced in your own mind this Labour government deliberately wants to make it harder for local people to afford homes locally, this Labour government wants to hurt British Farming communities and their output, wants to see UK products disappear from the supermarkets, actually wants to see small family farms struggle and sold on to bigger richer concerns with less concern for environment, Labour actually want an industry employing 4 million in labour and trade to shrink - you don’t understand the difference between accident and design in policy making. What you are calling left wing ideological, can be identical accidents waiting in design by right wing ideologues too, as I have frequently very clearly explained.
But that’s never where the greatest dangers come in politics. This is more “kill all sparrows” than ideological.
Labour don’t realise the damage their actions will do to so many things they don’t want to see go wrong. As I explained the other day, the whole of their recent budget is very much like that. This is not ideology, it’s inherent vice. So the wall comes down in spite of what they really want to happen.
Because the reality is we really shouldn’t view political opponents as in league with devils, but know the road to hell is always paved by people with good intentions. If we can only explain APR in strictly transactional terms like you are, it’s exactly what the DaftHorseBat wants to hear us say, and see on front of Telegraph and Daily Mail. They want to think of themselves as clever and effective enacting such transactional change, the reason for this governments existence as both you and they are regarding it - not slow witless and ignorant of unintended consequences hurting their own intentions, as I am calling them out.
In fact, if I recall correctly, the man who was technically in command of all the Japanese army forces in the Philippines, actually ordered the forces in Manila to withdraw from the city. That doesn't make the actions less evil, but it does change -- somewhat -- where the worst blame should be directed.
I've been wondering, from time to Time, would Corbyn have wanted to meet Solzhenitsyn, if they lived just a few hours apart?
I can so easily satisfy your question. The answer is very obvious actually, and straightforward.
Think of birds eating spiders, it’s like that. The people who introduced it were thinking just like that. No spiders, no birds.
APR is an enabler for planning and investment. And it helps farms stay with those who can continue to produce food and care for the countryside. And it of course helps those who need them to be there.
What appears to be feeding spiders, is stopping all the birds disappearing.
Alternatively think it as sparrows eating locust larvae
The Japanese Navy forces were ordered to stay behind and do urban fighting by headquarters in Japan aiui, and the Army did not stay. Roughly.
There were also a large number of deaths due to artillery bombardment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBZjTbotmg0
Typhoo is pretty inspid stuff.
Labour faced public finances in a state and so faced a choice - do they badly disappoint supporters who'll claim betrayal, or scrape around to get what extra money they can while signalling that the pain is shared and they can fulfil promises to some extent. From that perspective it's a no brainer to look to people who by any estimation are among the wealthiest cohort in the country and don't tend to vote Labour.
That's politics, it's about priorities and isn't going to be fair in that someone will be hit by any tax change or spending shift. You can equally look at things Labour would clearly love to do but won't go near for practical and electoral reasons to show aren't being more tribal and partisan than any government.
Meanwhile, if you want someone to blame for the rise in employer's NI it's Jeremy Hunt - who made the reckless decision to cut employees' NI as a pre-election bribe and trap for Labour. Whose answer to get out of the pickle it presented them has been to raise it on employers so they can fill the hole while not technically raising taxes on ordinary working people.
That might well be a wrong decision economically, but it's fairly obvious why they did it politically - and if you're looking for someone to blame it's the Tories for abandoning economic sobriety in favour of playing political games.
Much easier to go and knock on the door of someone middle-class about bad words though.
That's why we have it.
Either something is a crime or it is not. If the latter, it is no business of the police.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwp4059xgo
(1) It probably aligns with EDI culture, which has infected the police like almost everywhere else - it was Allison Pearson, who's no shrinking violet
(2) It's probably an easier "crime" to both 'detect' and 'clear up', thus improving individual and force performance stats and at a little to no risk to the officers concerned
Show me the incentive and I'll show you the behaviour.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/war-games-expose-aircraft-carriers-as-the-royal-navys-weak-link-59v3zgtjt
I might try and get a bit more sleep.
(I still think there’s something not quite right with women beating each other up).
Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1
Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7
Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
Those in the Spectator / Telegraph silo pretending it is all about them need to give their heads a wobble.
As for Die Hard 4.0 in his review Mark Kermode most wittily called it Die Hard 4.less, how we laughed. So it’s probably well worth watching.
Thursday, 8 Jun 2006
So here we go. After all the build up, the billions of words spoken and written, in a few hours the World Cup starts as Germany take on Costa Rica.
Within a matter of few days, we will have that four yearly rash of women newspaper columnists suddenly imagining that the world needs to know their views on Ronaldinho, or how confused they get that there is a Ronaldo playing for Brazil and another playing for Portugal, who have a Brazilian manager who almost came to England but it never happened because England have to have an English manager but isn't it very confusing because at the moment they have a Swede in charge with a glamorous girlfriend and what a coincidence that England will play Sweden in the opening stages.
Blah, blah, blah. Memo to columnists who have never been to a football match - we don't care what you think. Take a holiday.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060613060610/http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-targeted-secret-nuclear-weapons-research-in-iran-strikes-last-month-report/
It seems the place was doing the sort of work that was being done at Orford Ness in the 1960s.
It's an insidious way of suppressing speech.
Hope Rory McIlroy wins!
https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/14/academic_papers_retracted_software_licensing/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c206dyxkg01o
https://www.slashgear.com/1694189/how-diesel-powered-swedish-submarine-sunk-us-aircraft-carrier-uss-ronald-reagan/
Countries are mad to deploy expensive aircraft carriers anywhere where they don't have overwhelming superiority already, unless they are being invaded or something.
https://x.com/davidfrum/status/1857220969695465980
I reckon Phillipson though. Reeves and Streeting annoy too many in his own party.
https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1857445960684798296?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Jake Paul, a 27-year-old social media huckster, beat a 58-year-old man with a long history of health problems, both physically and mentally, in a boxing ring late on Friday night.
Against China, probably not.
Ours - worse than useless, since they're a large resource drain. And we don't have a purpose for them anymore, anyway.
Less than a week until the next F1 race.
I fear TSE is stretching just a tad.
Curiously, that seems to have bee forgotten by all the 'men' hyperventilating over the fight.
It’s thoroughly depressing to watch what’s been happening to Georgia. Nevermind Abkhazia, the whole country has been administratively captured by Russia in the same Ukraine was being under Yanukovich.
On IHT and APR the protests could have been easily avoided through grandfathering provisions.
Apply it only to estates purchased in the past 10 years. Anything before then retains the full exemption. That means you are not capturing any family farms, only billionaire tax planning.
Not watched the fight and now probably won't. I made the classic boxing mistake of taking for granted that the other guy is thinking just as hard about it as the first guy.
Possibly see the Fury Usyk rematch also.
NEW THREAD
In theory with a large protective surface fleet that should be able to support major operations anywhere but we've seen what happened to the Russians in the Black Sea.
Missiles and drones would be a constant problem. I wouldn't want to be on one of those ships.