How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Well, in the NHS strikes have stopped.
There was a change of Government. Part of the reason for the strikes had gone away.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
It will simply concentrate more of the farmland in the hands of the big agri-businesses who aren't affected by the tax changes.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
More simply, who is going to police this?
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
Checks Viz - the Bottom Inspectors, of course!
But seriously, this is the exact point.
There are already laws against lewd behaviour.
There's also no magic forcefield around a gendered lavatory as far as I'm aware, as a man you can just walk into the women's loos and assault a woman if you are so inclined. You don't have to take HRT, become infertile, grow boobies, and have strangers laugh at you in the street, just for the chance to use the women's loos. You can just walk right in. Do we really think trans people are subjecting themselves to all of that, just to gain access to a marginally cleaner lavatory?
I don’t think (most women’s) objection is that they think anyone is going to assault them. I think they just want to keep some spaces as (biological) women only in general.
As above, in most public places you could remove the issue by going fully gender neutral plus separate blocks of urinals. Probably would need more cleaners mind.
Again, to Foxy's point, how do you police that?
If a trans woman looks female, how do you propose to stop her at the door? Doormen doing mandatory dna tests?
Perhaps you could have someone taking everyone's pants down to check they don't have a winkie. But then you'd still be letting those pesky transes who've had the surgery through.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Well, in the NHS strikes have stopped.
There was a change of Government. Part of the reason for the strikes had gone away.
Exactly, the new government re-opened negotiations rather than continue the debilitating stand off.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Well, in the NHS strikes have stopped.
There was a change of Government. Part of the reason for the strikes had gone away.
Exactly, the new government re-opened negotiations rather than continue the debilitating stand off.
LOL. No. Part of the reason for the strikes was purely political. To get rid of the Tory Government. Once that had happened that reason was gone. Having demanded 35% they settled for far less. Funny that.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
You’ll have a capacity issue if you set aside specific bathrooms for trans men/women. There aren’t that many of them and in public spaces there isn’t enough provision of toilets anyway.
You should probably go with male/female and a couple of unisex cubicles that can be used by anyone (in the way that disabled cubicles are unisex)
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Well, in the NHS strikes have stopped.
There was a change of Government. Part of the reason for the strikes had gone away.
Exactly, the new government re-opened negotiations rather than continue the debilitating stand off.
LOL. No. Part of the reason for the strikes was purely political. To get rid of the Tory Government. Once that had happened that reason was gone. Having demanded 35% they settled for far less. Funny that.
The Scottish Juniors accepted a 12% rise well before the Westminster election.
If the Tories had offered that, then it too would have probably been accepted.
The strikes were not being directed by radical leaders, they were grass roots grievances, hence the 98% vote from the Juniors to strike.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
More simply, who is going to police this?
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
Checks Viz - the Bottom Inspectors, of course!
But seriously, this is the exact point.
There are already laws against lewd behaviour.
There's also no magic forcefield around a gendered lavatory as far as I'm aware, as a man you can just walk into the women's loos and assault a woman if you are so inclined. You don't have to take HRT, become infertile, grow boobies, and have strangers laugh at you in the street, just for the chance to use the women's loos. You can just walk right in. Do we really think trans people are subjecting themselves to all of that, just to gain access to a marginally cleaner lavatory?
I don’t think (most women’s) objection is that they think anyone is going to assault them. I think they just want to keep some spaces as (biological) women only in general.
As above, in most public places you could remove the issue by going fully gender neutral plus separate blocks of urinals. Probably would need more cleaners mind.
Again, to Foxy's point, how do you police that?
If a trans woman looks female, how do you propose to stop her at the door? Doormen doing mandatory dna tests?
Perhaps you could have someone taking everyone's pants down to check they don't have a winkie. But then you'd still be letting those pesky transes who've had the surgery through.
Police what? I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I’m literally suggesting everyone have equal access to all of them.
You stop talking about trans-issues in the context of loos by neutralising the whole thing. But I’d want some female opinions first. Not for me to make the rules for them.
Off topic: Does the Loser know what happened after the 1930 House elections? "While the Democrats gained 52 seats in the 1930 midterm elections, Republicans retained a narrow one-seat majority of 218 seats after the polls closed versus the Democrats' 216 seats; however, during the 13 months between these elections and the end of the 72nd Congress,[4] 14 members-elect died (including incumbent Speaker Nicholas Longworth), and the Democrats gained an additional three seats in the special elections called to fill these vacancies, thus gaining control of the House (they held a 219–212 advantage over the Republicans when the new Congress convened)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
Probably not.
(Note that the Republicans won a large majority of the popular vote in 1930, even while losing control of the House. Few blacks voted in the South, and poor whites were less likely to vote in the South, than the rest of the nation.)
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
More simply, who is going to police this?
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
Checks Viz - the Bottom Inspectors, of course!
But seriously, this is the exact point.
There are already laws against lewd behaviour.
There's also no magic forcefield around a gendered lavatory as far as I'm aware, as a man you can just walk into the women's loos and assault a woman if you are so inclined. You don't have to take HRT, become infertile, grow boobies, and have strangers laugh at you in the street, just for the chance to use the women's loos. You can just walk right in. Do we really think trans people are subjecting themselves to all of that, just to gain access to a marginally cleaner lavatory?
I don’t think (most women’s) objection is that they think anyone is going to assault them. I think they just want to keep some spaces as (biological) women only in general.
As above, in most public places you could remove the issue by going fully gender neutral plus separate blocks of urinals. Probably would need more cleaners mind.
Again, to Foxy's point, how do you police that?
If a trans woman looks female, how do you propose to stop her at the door? Doormen doing mandatory dna tests?
Perhaps you could have someone taking everyone's pants down to check they don't have a winkie. But then you'd still be letting those pesky transes who've had the surgery through.
Police what? I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I’m literally suggesting everyone have equal access to all of them.
You stop talking about trans-issues in the context of loos by neutralising the whole thing. But I’d want some female opinions first. Not for me to make the rules for them.
OK, apologies.
I was responding to "keep some spaces as biological women only" without a clear definition of that.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
It depends on whether demand is elastic or not. If the consequence of Junior Doctor strikes is that expensive Consultants rearrange their holidays to provide cover [1] and then when those Consultants take TOIL / their holidays very expensive agency staff are used to cover them, then it may be cost effective to pay the JD’s demands.
Massive increase in training would solve the problem. (See paramedics)
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
It will simply concentrate more of the farmland in the hands of the big agri-businesses who aren't affected by the tax changes.
There are very very few listed businesses owning British farmland. Almost all is owned by the big estates, which are privately held and subject to IHT.
I work with a couple of agribusiness giants that have farmland, but it’s in the USA, Canada, Ukraine, Brazil and (until recently) Russia, where the big bucks are to be made.
I think the APR changes were a bit cack handed but actually, certainly in the South and midlands, they may give tenant farmers more of a chance to pick up some holdings. I know from the long and frustrating process of trying to find land for a vineyard that most land just doesn’t come on the market from one generation to the next.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
My team did some research into private taxes around the developed world. The results were stark: our IHT rate is was higher than our peers, but the scope of the tax is way narrower. Others tax more people, but at a lower rate.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
Public sympathy was not really with the strikers either.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
It will simply concentrate more of the farmland in the hands of the big agri-businesses who aren't affected by the tax changes.
There are very very few listed businesses owning British farmland. Almost all is owned by the big estates, which are privately held and subject to IHT.
I work with a couple of agribusiness giants that have farmland, but it’s in the USA, Canada, Ukraine, Brazil and (until recently) Russia, where the big bucks are to be made.
I think the APR changes were a bit cack handed but actually, certainly in the South and midlands, they may give tenant farmers more of a chance to pick up some holdings. I know from the long and frustrating process of trying to find land for a vineyard that most land just doesn’t come on the market from one generation to the next.
Well indeed. A relative of mine has worked his entire adult life as a tenant farmer, and his eldest daughter now works for the son of the same landowner. Needless to say, the family of the landowner are apoplectic about the new tax, but my relative is secretly pleased because it means his daughter will have more of a chance of buying some land of her own. He has to keep very quiet about it though.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
Public sympathy was not really with the strikers either.
I think it absolutely was with the NHS workers. The government lost that strike.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
I don’t agree.
I think the country could have easily survived. But at a financial cost.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
It will simply concentrate more of the farmland in the hands of the big agri-businesses who aren't affected by the tax changes.
There are very very few listed businesses owning British farmland. Almost all is owned by the big estates, which are privately held and subject to IHT.
I work with a couple of agribusiness giants that have farmland, but it’s in the USA, Canada, Ukraine, Brazil and (until recently) Russia, where the big bucks are to be made.
I think the APR changes were a bit cack handed but actually, certainly in the South and midlands, they may give tenant farmers more of a chance to pick up some holdings. I know from the long and frustrating process of trying to find land for a vineyard that most land just doesn’t come on the market from one generation to the next.
Well indeed. A relative of mine has worked his entire adult life as a tenant farmer, and his eldest daughter now works for the son of the same landowner. Needless to say, the family of the landowner are apoplectic about the new tax, but my relative is secretly pleased because it means his daughter will have more of a chance of buying some land of her own. He has to keep very quiet about it though.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
My team did some research into private taxes around the developed world. The results were stark: our IHT rate is was higher than our peers, but the scope of the tax is way narrower. Others tax more people, but at a lower rate.
Which is what we should do - take in more IHT and use the extra raised to fund social care.
The long, long party is over boomers. Time to cough up.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
My team did some research into private taxes around the developed world. The results were stark: our IHT rate is was higher than our peers, but the scope of the tax is way narrower. Others tax more people, but at a lower rate.
Which is what we should do - take in more IHT and use the extra raised to fund social care.
The long, long party is over boomers. Time to cough up.
Or we could seriously focus on growing the economy. Fighting over a shrinking pie is a depressing prospect.
Democratic Wins Media @DemocraticWins · 5h BREAKING: Democrat Allison Riggs just won her reelection campaign by less than 100 votes. Don’t ever let anyone tell you your vote doesn’t matter.
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
Public sympathy was not really with the strikers either.
I think it absolutely was with the NHS workers. The government lost that strike.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
My team did some research into private taxes around the developed world. The results were stark: our IHT rate is was higher than our peers, but the scope of the tax is way narrower. Others tax more people, but at a lower rate.
Which is what we should do - take in more IHT and use the extra raised to fund social care.
The long, long party is over boomers. Time to cough up.
Or we could seriously focus on growing the economy. Fighting over a shrinking pie is a depressing prospect.
Shifting the burden of taxation away from working people/businesses and onto wealth (inheritance tax etc.) is I would argue likely to improve economic growth.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
My team did some research into private taxes around the developed world. The results were stark: our IHT rate is was higher than our peers, but the scope of the tax is way narrower. Others tax more people, but at a lower rate.
Which is what we should do - take in more IHT and use the extra raised to fund social care.
The long, long party is over boomers. Time to cough up.
Or we could seriously focus on growing the economy. Fighting over a shrinking pie is a depressing prospect.
Shifting the burden of taxation away from working people/businesses and onto wealth (inheritance tax etc.) is I would argue likely to improve economic growth.
As I said earlier they could have avoided all these protests by grandfathering the rules for land bought within the last 10 years.
And yes, opening up land ownership to allow tenant farmers a look-in mightn’t be such a bad idea.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
Yes, you could still get good pasture land in much of Scotland for around £1500 per acre in 2002. By 2008, the best blocks were selling for £5-6k/acre plus. The corporations and big businesses would start to ramp up interest in buying land from late 2000s onwards
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
Would you? As long as it didn't affect the tax status of your current ISAs, you'd have small reason to be upset.
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
Yes and Reeves left that untouched for the duration of the parliament.
£20 000 is a lot of spare after tax income.
£20,000 sounds a lot but the average mortgage repayment is close to that figure, so if HMG wishes to incentivise saving by middle-aged, middle class families who have paid off the mortgage, rather than spaff it away on Leon-inspired exotic holidays, then maybe it is about right.
The south is clearly a different place because How big is the mortgage because our mortgage is £300 a month and even twin A's mortgage is £650 a month..
Dunno. I just googled the average and got £1,400 a month which is £17,000 a year which is roughly the £20,000 ISA limit.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
Yes, but 100% relief only came in 1992, so has a part to play in the trebling of land prices to 2015. It certainly wasn't the profitability of farming trebling.
And again land values didn't change much (in fact dropped slightly) between 1992 and 2004 which is when they took off.
Why do you think land prices took off?
And do you really think that the value of 100% AR didn't increase prices?
Profitability increased, a lot of smaller dairy producers packed in, farms becoming more businesslike, borrowing was easier in early 2000s than early 1990s. Big business starting to invest in land from 2000s onwards (mainly in England).
Land price inflation wasn't a thing in the 1990s. APR has helped fuelled thr rise, but unlike houses, they don't make land any more (apart from China building their own islands)
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
Would you? As long as it didn't affect the tax status of your current ISAs, you'd have small reason to be upset.
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
Yes and Reeves left that untouched for the duration of the parliament.
£20 000 is a lot of spare after tax income.
£20,000 sounds a lot but the average mortgage repayment is close to that figure, so if HMG wishes to incentivise saving by middle-aged, middle class families who have paid off the mortgage, rather than spaff it away on Leon-inspired exotic holidays, then maybe it is about right.
The south is clearly a different place because How big is the mortgage because our mortgage is £300 a month and even twin A's mortgage is £650 a month..
Dunno. I just googled the average and got £1,400 a month which is £17,000 a year which is roughly the £20,000 ISA limit.
I'd be interested (though obviously not enough to google it) to know the breakdown of the mean vs median. And how it varied by region.
1400 is more than I've ever heard of for a monthly mortgage payment - so if that's the mean, I can only wince at the upper side.
So do I... But, but, but all this bullshit happened under 14 years of Conservative government, including two and half years of the Johnson Ministry... 🤷♂️
"Revealed: ‘Grassroots’ campaigns opposed to assisted dying financed by conservative Christian pressure groups
Religious lobbyists are secretly coordinating and funding bodies that claim to be led by disabled people and health workers ............
But analysis of financial records shows Our Duty of Care has close ties to religious lobby groups.
It shares an office address and spokesperson with the Christian Medical Fellowship, an evangelical organisation with an anti-abortion stance, and receives funding from the religious lobby group Care (Christian Action, Research and Education), which is known for its opposition to abortion, sex education, gay marriage and broader LGBTQ+ rights."
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
A price crash would certainly help those who aren't up to their necks in debt. There's no doubt there are more farms staying on the market for longer round here, more sellers than buyers was one land agents take on it
The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.
What the hell was a Conservative (a CONSERVATIVE) government doing criminalizing peoples thoughts?
In just one policy you've got exactly why the Tories were routed in July 2024 and a Farage-led government is by no means out of the question in 2029...
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
Public sympathy was not really with the strikers either.
I think it absolutely was with the NHS workers. The government lost that strike.
Nurses perhaps. Doctors, nope....
So we agree that continuing the nurses strike was wrong?
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
Public sympathy was not really with the strikers either.
I think it absolutely was with the NHS workers. The government lost that strike.
Nurses perhaps. Doctors, nope....
So we agree that continuing the nurses strike was wrong?
Indeed. The Nurses shouldn't have continued their strikes...
"Revealed: ‘Grassroots’ campaigns opposed to assisted dying financed by conservative Christian pressure groups
Religious lobbyists are secretly coordinating and funding bodies that claim to be led by disabled people and health workers ............
But analysis of financial records shows Our Duty of Care has close ties to religious lobby groups.
It shares an office address and spokesperson with the Christian Medical Fellowship, an evangelical organisation with an anti-abortion stance, and receives funding from the religious lobby group Care (Christian Action, Research and Education), which is known for its opposition to abortion, sex education, gay marriage and broader LGBTQ+ rights."
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
Public sympathy was not really with the strikers either.
I think it absolutely was with the NHS workers. The government lost that strike.
Nurses perhaps. Doctors, nope....
So we agree that continuing the nurses strike was wrong?
Indeed. The Nurses shouldn't have continued their strikes...
Okay but they weren’t going to stop. So you agree it was right to get them stopped or not?
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
Inheritance tax abolished in Sweden, Canada, Austria, Norway and Australia and New Zealand.
In the US the threshold starts at over $5 million dollars. Germany also has massive subsidies from the government to farms
Even France has better Inheritence tax laws than the UK. There it is paid by the recipient not the estate. Each recipient gets a tax free allowance of 150,000 Euros but even after that you have to inherit an additional half a million euros before you pay more than 20%.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
My team did some research into private taxes around the developed world. The results were stark: our IHT rate is was higher than our peers, but the scope of the tax is way narrower. Others tax more people, but at a lower rate.
Which is what we should do - take in more IHT and use the extra raised to fund social care.
The long, long party is over boomers. Time to cough up.
In case you missed it, it is not the Boomers who will be hit by these changes but the next generation.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Well, in the NHS strikes have stopped.
There was a change of Government. Part of the reason for the strikes had gone away.
Exactly, the new government re-opened negotiations rather than continue the debilitating stand off.
LOL. No. Part of the reason for the strikes was purely political. To get rid of the Tory Government. Once that had happened that reason was gone. Having demanded 35% they settled for far less. Funny that.
The Scottish Juniors accepted a 12% rise well before the Westminster election.
If the Tories had offered that, then it too would have probably been accepted.
The strikes were not being directed by radical leaders, they were grass roots grievances, hence the 98% vote from the Juniors to strike.
Yeah. You carry on believing that. I suppose all those 35% demands were simply our imagination.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
"This didn't happen overnight. It took years and years for people on the Left to construct the censorship machinery that inevitably led to police knocking on a journalist's door for something she posted on social media.
These bigots HATE that you might think differently and NOTHING will change their thinking until the Right grabs hold of this machinery and turns it on them."
"This thing is bad. We must use it against those we hate"
You could, y'know...just disassemble it?
If recording non-crime-hate-incident reports is bad... stop recording them. My preference would be to deindividualize them, aggregate the data and use it for statistical purposes. Ideally move it under the ONS and away from the criminal justice system.
This is possibly the first time I've disagreed with you on something. I don't think they should be collecting the data at all.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Well, in the NHS strikes have stopped.
There was a change of Government. Part of the reason for the strikes had gone away.
Exactly, the new government re-opened negotiations rather than continue the debilitating stand off.
LOL. No. Part of the reason for the strikes was purely political. To get rid of the Tory Government. Once that had happened that reason was gone. Having demanded 35% they settled for far less. Funny that.
The Scottish Juniors accepted a 12% rise well before the Westminster election.
If the Tories had offered that, then it too would have probably been accepted.
The strikes were not being directed by radical leaders, they were grass roots grievances, hence the 98% vote from the Juniors to strike.
Yeah. You carry on believing that. I suppose all those 35% demands were simply our imagination.
They were a negotiating position. Hardly unusual. The Conservative government refused to engage in any negotiations. The Tories either wanted the strikes, or were refusing to engage with reality.
Labour can arguably be criticised for not driving a harder bargain, given the fiscal state of the country, but the Tory position wasn't tenable.
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
"This didn't happen overnight. It took years and years for people on the Left to construct the censorship machinery that inevitably led to police knocking on a journalist's door for something she posted on social media.
These bigots HATE that you might think differently and NOTHING will change their thinking until the Right grabs hold of this machinery and turns it on them."
"This thing is bad. We must use it against those we hate"
You could, y'know...just disassemble it?
If recording non-crime-hate-incident reports is bad... stop recording them. My preference would be to deindividualize them, aggregate the data and use it for statistical purposes. Ideally move it under the ONS and away from the criminal justice system.
This is possibly the first time I've disagreed with you on something. I don't think they should be collecting the data at all.
I don't see any problem collecting the data as long as it is anonymised.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
Inheritance tax abolished in Sweden, Canada, Austria, Norway and Australia and New Zealand.
In the US the threshold starts at over $5 million dollars. Germany also has massive subsidies from the government to farms
Maybe the next Conservative government will commit to abolishing this tax, or at least set it at a similar level to the United States.
Economy will need to have improved quite a bit to be considering £7bn tax cuts. I'd like to see Labour raising more from inheritance/wealth and if it is possible to lower taxes, prioritise lowering income/NI...
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
Indeed. For Ukraine nuclear weapons will be basically a blackmail tool. They do not have missiles capable of carrying a (presumably) large, heavy and primitive bomb. But their special forces are scary, scary mothers. Who's to say a few nondescript men won't turn up in Moscow one day soon in a dirty truck with a very special cargo in the back. Once it's been confirmed Ukraine have the warheads Putin can never be sure when or where they'll be used.
It would put Europe in an interesting position; who's threats of nuclear war are more plausible? If Ukraine looks like losing the war, which is the biggest risk? Ukraine going nuclear as a last resort, or Europe putting boots on the ground to save Ukraine, prompting inevitable nuclear threats from Russia?
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
Interestingly, of the 22 OECD countries listed in this report, the UK is one of only three countries in which "land or immovable property used for agriculture or forestry" is completely exempt from inheritance tax. Somehow, though, the others still manage to produce food:
Inheritance tax abolished in Sweden, Canada, Austria, Norway and Australia and New Zealand.
In the US the threshold starts at over $5 million dollars. Germany also has massive subsidies from the government to farms
Maybe the next Conservative government will commit to abolishing this tax, or at least set it at a similar level to the United States.
Economy will need to have improved quite a bit to be considering £7bn tax cuts. I'd like to see Labour raising more from inheritance/wealth and if it is possible to lower taxes, prioritise lowering income/NI...
The Gvt now spends £1Trn a year. £7Bn here or there is marginal.
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
"I too had visit from police over tweet, says writer Julie Bindel reveals that officers visited her home over an alleged hate crime after a complaint ‘from a transgender man in the Netherlands’"
"Welsh Government vows to change ‘beliefs and behaviour of the white majority’ Labour’s ant-racist action plan aims to ‘build an inclusive society for all our black, Asian and minority ethnic people’"
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
Apparently there are around 1.6 to 1.8 million non-domestic buildings in the UK. The logistics involved in building at least one extra separate toilet set per premise should hopefully not need pointing out.
The existing male/female/disabled setup should prove sufficient wherever you think trans people should wee and poo.
The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.
So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
Nearly 10,000 migrants deported since election as Starmer organises three BIGGEST return flights ever
Credit where it is due.
I don't know if the new government is responsible, but the area around Covent Garden/Shaftesbury Avenue where my apartment has been dramatically cleaned up in the last 6 months.
A lead of 1.5%, give or take, for Trump, plus very small margins in the Senate and House, is a long way from being a landslide.
With the Presidency, Senate and House, Trump has the trifecta, as Americans say, and some of his Cabinet picks seem designed to test Congress's obeisance.
I'm looking at moving my business to Czech Republic, which is 8th. And also seems to have better functioning public services and a more coherent civil society than the UK...
Comments
If a trans woman looks female, how do you propose to stop her at the door? Doormen doing mandatory dna tests?
Perhaps you could have someone taking everyone's pants down to check they don't have a winkie. But then you'd still be letting those pesky transes who've had the surgery through.
You should probably go with male/female and a couple of unisex cubicles that can be used by anyone (in the way that disabled cubicles are unisex)
If the Tories had offered that, then it too would have probably been accepted.
The strikes were not being directed by radical leaders, they were grass roots grievances, hence the 98% vote from the Juniors to strike.
You stop talking about trans-issues in the context of loos by neutralising the whole thing. But I’d want some female opinions first. Not for me to make the rules for them.
"While the Democrats gained 52 seats in the 1930 midterm elections, Republicans retained a narrow one-seat majority of 218 seats after the polls closed versus the Democrats' 216 seats; however, during the 13 months between these elections and the end of the 72nd Congress,[4] 14 members-elect died (including incumbent Speaker Nicholas Longworth), and the Democrats gained an additional three seats in the special elections called to fill these vacancies, thus gaining control of the House (they held a 219–212 advantage over the Republicans when the new Congress convened)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
Probably not.
(Note that the Republicans won a large majority of the popular vote in 1930, even while losing control of the House. Few blacks voted in the South, and poor whites were less likely to vote in the South, than the rest of the nation.)
I was responding to "keep some spaces as biological women only" without a clear definition of that.
AND
VOTE FARMER
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issues/tax-policy/inheritance-taxation-in-oecd-countries-brochure.pdf
Massive increase in training would solve the problem. (See paramedics)
S
[1] and a big improvement in care.
I work with a couple of agribusiness giants that have farmland, but it’s in the USA, Canada, Ukraine, Brazil and (until recently) Russia, where the big bucks are to be made.
I think the APR changes were a bit cack handed but actually, certainly in the South and midlands, they may give tenant farmers more of a chance to pick up some holdings. I know from the long and frustrating process of trying to find land for a vineyard that most land just doesn’t come on the market from one generation to the next.
The long, long party is over boomers. Time to cough up.
Sympathies.
Fighting over a shrinking pie is a depressing prospect.
@DemocraticWins
·
5h
BREAKING: Democrat Allison Riggs just won her reelection campaign by less than 100 votes. Don’t ever let anyone tell you your vote doesn’t matter.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
And yes, opening up land ownership to allow tenant farmers a look-in mightn’t be such a bad idea.
Land price inflation wasn't a thing in the 1990s. APR has helped fuelled thr rise, but unlike houses, they don't make land any more (apart from China building their own islands)
1400 is more than I've ever heard of for a monthly mortgage payment - so if that's the mean, I can only wince at the upper side.
Religious lobbyists are secretly coordinating and funding bodies that claim to be led by disabled people and health workers ............
But analysis of financial records shows Our Duty of Care has close ties to religious lobby groups.
It shares an office address and spokesperson with the Christian Medical Fellowship, an evangelical organisation with an anti-abortion stance, and receives funding from the religious lobby group Care (Christian Action, Research and Education), which is known for its opposition to abortion, sex education, gay marriage and broader LGBTQ+ rights."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/16/revealed-grassroots-campaigns-opposed-to-assisted-dying-financed-by-conservative-christian-pressure-groups
In just one policy you've got exactly why the Tories were routed in July 2024 and a Farage-led government is by no means out of the question in 2029...
It worked for the Tories until 2017.
But that makes no difference to the actual proposals.
I would vote vehemently against it.
They also support their farmers with more subsidies and tariffs on foreign food imports
https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
In the US the threshold starts at over $5 million dollars. Germany also has massive subsidies from the government to farms
Nuclear arms.
I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station.
The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
Labour can arguably be criticised for not driving a harder bargain, given the fiscal state of the country, but the Tory position wasn't tenable.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
I'd like to see Labour raising more from inheritance/wealth and if it is possible to lower taxes, prioritise lowering income/NI...
It would put Europe in an interesting position; who's threats of nuclear war are more plausible? If Ukraine looks like losing the war, which is the biggest risk? Ukraine going nuclear as a last resort, or Europe putting boots on the ground to save Ukraine, prompting inevitable nuclear threats from Russia?
Republican had been in lead continuously but lead had been steadily falling.
Position now: Republicans 218, Democats 211.
Six seats still to be called - both parties leading in three.
McCormick (GOP) 3,395,274
Casey (Dem) 3,377,773
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/results/senate?admin1=42&election-data-id=2024-SG&selected-election-data-id=2024-SG-PA&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false
Nearly 10,000 migrants deported since election as Starmer organises three BIGGEST return flights ever
Julie Bindel reveals that officers visited her home over an alleged hate crime after a complaint ‘from a transgender man in the Netherlands’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/twitter-hate-crime-tweets-pearson-bindel/
"Welsh Government vows to change ‘beliefs and behaviour of the white majority’
Labour’s ant-racist action plan aims to ‘build an inclusive society for all our black, Asian and minority ethnic people’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/welsh-government-vows-to-change-beliefs-of-white-majority/
The existing male/female/disabled setup should prove sufficient wherever you think trans people should wee and poo.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66b4dfe6ab418ab055593520/ND-NEED-2024-report.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c3b54628a4a00012d2ba5b/non-domestic-building-stock-executive-summary.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c3b42a3f634b000d42c67b/non-domestic-building-stock-part-1-stock-description.pdf
https://taxfoundation.org/location/sweden/#itci
I'm looking at moving my business to Czech Republic, which is 8th. And also seems to have better functioning public services and a more coherent civil society than the UK...
How many votes are outstanding?