The main reason public sector productivity is so poor is the inability to move unproductive people out. The ultimate tool for increasing output per worker is to shit can the least productive ones which is something that private sector businesses do all the time. Until that attitude is brought to the public sector no amount of "investment" will help. The lazy and the feckless are attracted to the public sector because they know once they're in it's impossible to be removed regardless of how shit they are at the job.
Change this and suddenly public sector productivity will shoot up as those lazy buggers start to fear for their next salary.
To broaden the point, where's the incentive to sack people who aren't performing - where is the incentive to perform at all? The money comes from Government grant, so the incentive is actually to fail, because failing services get more money thrown at them. The NHS has been very successful at failing for years. An efficient, high performance public service would see its budget reduced the next year.
What we really need is a total reordering of incentives within the public sector, where possible based on the money following the user, and the user having choice. If hospitals and schools had to attract patients and pupils to get funding, all the perverse incentives would be reversed and the services grow better and more efficient.
I'm plowing thru (I know, I know ) Abby Innes's "Late Soviet Britain" and she makes a very convincing case as to why that simply doesn't work. Basically if you run the public sector like the private sector you lose control due to the principle-agent problem, so to regain control you impose authorities, regulators, targets etc, and you end up with a brundlefly hybrid with the disadvantages of both, lying on the lab floor pleading to be killed.
It sounds good in theory. It isn't in practice. And we have about forty years of evidence for that now.
I don't know what 'the principle agent problem' is - if I did I could opine. I'd say 'losing control' is a feature not a bug - Whitehall controlling things appears to be at the root of most of the problems we face, and has been for more than 5 decades.
As for practice, of course we don't have 40 years of experience. Market based reforms haven't taken place in our public services, even at pilot level as far as I'm aware.
If you outsource a thing to somebody else, that person has their own goals and will deviate from yours over times. You need to prevent them so you end up imposing controls, making a mockery of the outsourcing in the first place.
I was referring to the Thatcher reforms of outsourcing, followed by the Blair reforms of targets etc. We tried it. It didn't work. We tried to make it better. We made it worse. By the time we got to Covid it got out-and-out corrupt. And we keep saying "more bureaucracy will fix it!" It won't. And we keep saying "make it behave like the private sector!". And it doesn't
That doesn't really address my point though. What you're talking about could be termed 'the privatisation of supply'. What I am talking about is the privatisation of demand. When you outsource supply, there may be some efficiency benefits, but the Government is still the client and the system does not change fundamentally - and it brings its own issues. When you privatise the demand, you're reversing that. It doesn't matter whether the supplier is in public or private hands. It could be entirely public, but as long as the money and therefore the incentive comes from the user, and the user is free to go elsewhere, with the requisite effect on income, it will work.
Looking at business property generally, suppose you have a business worth £3m. That £3m comprises premises, plant and machinery, goodwill etc.
£2m of that gets taxed at 20% ie £400,000. That’s quite a stiff entry fee for the next generation to operate that business.
Getting a business worth £2.6m for nowt, such a hardship.
You are not getting it, now you are 400K in debt , you are running at a loss and so the factory folds and you have nothing , workers are all on benefits, no more taxes being paid , your suppliers have to cut back and so on. Are you pretending to be Bart Simpson.
If farms all ran at a loss they would not exist so that’s clearly bollocks Malcolm unless these farmers have a secret orchard of magic money trees.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
Yep. They are actually STUPID, and malevolently so
And let's look at their record so far
Inflation: rising Unemployment: rising Growth: nearly extinguished Taxes: rising Debt: rising Public services: cut Defence: cut Pensioners: told to freeze Farmers: told to fuck off Retailers: told to jump in a lake Chagos Islands: given away for nothing, indeed we have to PAY
That's just the first five months. And that's ignoring all the petty grift and corruption
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
Or change the law so what is illegal becomes legal, or at least some of them.
My only experience of ebikes is they have completely replaced classic bicycles for Deliveroo. Probably most are legal or legal-ish. Otoh, if I'd had a series of phones nicked by masked men on ebikes, my perspective would be different.
What slightly concerns me is that some of the opposition comes from the pedal cycle purists. If too fast is too fast, it should not matter if the machine is battery-assisted or cost £2,000 (after government subsidy) for legs only.
The problem is that the eBike users want to
1) Break the law. And ride a vehicle that is legally a moped class vehicle as a push bike. 2) Use dedicated cycling infrastructure and even dedicated pedestrian walkways as their roads.
Near me, the children are being chased out of the dedicated cycle lanes by the eMoped steps doing 25mph+. I can tell they are going that fast, because in a couple of places they are going past those signs that display your speed.
On the river side, we have had people knocked down on the embankment by eMoped clowns using the pedestrian space to zoom along at reckless speeds. One idiot went round a corner and slammed into a boat being taken out of a boat house. Fortunately the boat was a massive tub boat, so it wasn't damaged.
If you want to ride a moped, fine. Get insurance, training etc. Just because you have a slightly funky design of moped, why should the rules not apply?
Rules which were made because of the differences in danger to the user and others from vehicles as velocity and mass increase.
Looking at business property generally, suppose you have a business worth £3m. That £3m comprises premises, plant and machinery, goodwill etc.
£2m of that gets taxed at 20% ie £400,000. That’s quite a stiff entry fee for the next generation to operate that business.
Getting a business worth £2.6m for nowt, such a hardship.
You are not getting it, now you are 400K in debt , you are running at a loss and so the factory folds and you have nothing , workers are all on benefits, no more taxes being paid , your suppliers have to cut back and so on. Are you pretending to be Bart Simpson.
How could a farm with net assets that incur a IHT bill of £400,000 be in debt?
It would have to be worth at least £3.3 million. That could be £20 million assets and £16.7 million in liabilities, or any other combination that adds up to £3.3 million.
Reports Ukraine have fired Storm Shadow into Russia
If so I assume Starmer has given approval
12 of them it seems
If Ukraine wishes to change facts on the ground in order to have an impact pre-Trump, they will have to move rapidly given how long they have been made to wait.
A tricky balance - use it now, or use it slowly in case we need it to survive after Mr Trump does what he and his people have been saying they are going to do?
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I originally put £2-4m but simplified it (but cut out my assumed leverage of £3M).
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That's very eloquent, but, unfortunately, Ukraine is running out of soldiers, as they are all dead
Russia has to keep its ratio of losses to Ukrainian losses, no higher than three to one. Russia’s losses are well above that.
Are they? You're very credulous when it comes to Ukraine. I can recall you reassuring us that the Great Ukrainian Counter-Offensive was about to reach the Sea of Azov. They barely moved an inch, in reality, and at vast expense in men and materiel
No one knows the true toll of Ukrainian soldiers coz the Kyiv govt keeps it quiet (and understandably so, all wartime governments do this) but I can say, from having been there twice during this war, that an awful lack of young men is visible on the streets, and of those you do see, an awful lot are clearly injured, maimed, on crutches
Meanwhile thousands of young men - maybe tens or hundreds of thousands - have illegally fled Ukraine to avoid the draft. I've met a few of them
Recall all the other hopeful lies we've been told about this war
1. Putin has cancer 2. Putin will be overthrown 3. Russia will collapse under sanctions 4. Russia is mutinying 5. etc etc
It's hard to find the truth in the panto of lies, on all sides, but one should be almost as wary of Ukrainian propaganda as Russian propaganda
You’re just as credulous on the other side. You’ve been predicting imminent Russian victory since the war began. At one point, you were predicting that Putin would use nukes. You think that Putin is a man who can be trusted to adhere to a peace treaty.
No one disputes that Ukraine is suffering. But, so is Russia.
Russians are not some unbeatable race of super-soldiers, like Fremen.
Absolute nonsense. I have never "predicted imminent Russian victory", I have merely been more objective about this war than you, or lots of other people on this site. This site loses its mind on this subject, and anyone who dares to say "er, Ukraine might not be winning" is shouted down as a "fucking appeaser" and a "Putinist shill". It's stupid. It's especially alarming when it comes from normally clever sensible posters like you!
Also, I have actually been to Ukraine twice, and been all over, from Lviv to Chernivtsi, from Kyiv to Odesa, I've been bombed and droned and I've seen the destruction. There is nothing like eye witness evidence for clarifying one's thoughts
Fnally as for the nukes thing, yes I was agitated, it did look horribly possible at one point. And do you know who else was agitated? The White House, the CIA and the Pentagon. At the very same time I was hyperventilating, they too were horribly scared that Putin might actually do it: drop a bomb of some kind
"Months into Russia’s war in Ukraine, the United States had intelligence pointing to “highly sensitive, credible conversations inside the Kremlin” that President Vladimir Putin was seriously considering using nuclear weapons to avoid major battlefield losses, journalist Bob Woodward reported in his new book, “War.”
The U.S. intelligence pointed to a 50% chance that Putin would use tactical nukes if Ukrainian forces surrounded 30,000 Russian troops in the southern city of Kherson, the book says"
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
Or change the law so what is illegal becomes legal, or at least some of them.
My only experience of ebikes is they have completely replaced classic bicycles for Deliveroo. Probably most are legal or legal-ish. Otoh, if I'd had a series of phones nicked by masked men on ebikes, my perspective would be different.
What slightly concerns me is that some of the opposition comes from the pedal cycle purists. If too fast is too fast, it should not matter if the machine is battery-assisted or cost £2,000 (after government subsidy) for legs only.
The problem is that the eBike users want to
1) Break the law. And ride a vehicle that is legally a moped class vehicle as a push bike. 2) Use dedicated cycling infrastructure and even dedicated pedestrian walkways as their roads.
Near me, the children are being chased out of the dedicated cycle lanes by the eMoped steps doing 25mph+. I can tell they are going that fast, because in a couple of places they are going past those signs that display your speed.
On the river side, we have had people knocked down on the embankment by eMoped clowns using the pedestrian space to zoom along at reckless speeds. One idiot went round a corner and slammed into a boat being taken out of a boat house. Fortunately the boat was a massive tub boat, so it wasn't damaged.
If you want to ride a moped, fine. Get insurance, training etc. Just because you have a slightly funky design of moped, why should the rules not apply?
Rules which were made because of the differences in danger to the user and others from vehicles as velocity and mass increase.
Our local police have been great at cracking down on them. So good that it's raising some eyebrows given the relative lack of enforcement on other driving offences.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
Yep. They are actually STUPID, and malevolently so
And let's look at their record so far
Inflation: rising Unemployment: rising Growth: nearly extinguished Taxes: rising Debt: rising Public services: cut Defence: cut Pensioners: told to freeze Farmers: told to fuck off Retailers: told to jump in a lake Chagos Islands: given away for nothing, indeed we have to PAY
That's just the first five months. And that's ignoring all the petty grift and corruption
I know. It's appalling isn't it? What sort of idiot would have voted for them? Oh!
So we "save" £100 million a year by doing away with a whole bunch of warships, helicopters, and drones earlier than planned. Good thing we definitely won't need any of those things anytime soon.
I note that the dismal 2.5% target still has no date. Without a date Labour might as well say it's a 5% target.
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
Or change the law so what is illegal becomes legal, or at least some of them.
My only experience of ebikes is they have completely replaced classic bicycles for Deliveroo. Probably most are legal or legal-ish. Otoh, if I'd had a series of phones nicked by masked men on ebikes, my perspective would be different.
What slightly concerns me is that some of the opposition comes from the pedal cycle purists. If too fast is too fast, it should not matter if the machine is battery-assisted or cost £2,000 (after government subsidy) for legs only.
The problem is that the eBike users want to
1) Break the law. And ride a vehicle that is legally a moped class vehicle as a push bike. 2) Use dedicated cycling infrastructure and even dedicated pedestrian walkways as their roads.
Near me, the children are being chased out of the dedicated cycle lanes by the eMoped steps doing 25mph+. I can tell they are going that fast, because in a couple of places they are going past those signs that display your speed.
On the river side, we have had people knocked down on the embankment by eMoped clowns using the pedestrian space to zoom along at reckless speeds. One idiot went round a corner and slammed into a boat being taken out of a boat house. Fortunately the boat was a massive tub boat, so it wasn't damaged.
If you want to ride a moped, fine. Get insurance, training etc. Just because you have a slightly funky design of moped, why should the rules not apply?
Rules which were made because of the differences in danger to the user and others from vehicles as velocity and mass increase.
Yes but we also see ordinary bikes doing ludicrous speed, jumping the lights and so on, without licence or insurance. The problems are genuine but not demarcated by the legality of some electric motors.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Apologies if I missed it as I dived in mid-thread, and then my lunch hour disappeared immediately after posting so I'm late replying.
Actually I don't entirely disagree with you - farms and other family businesses should be treated the same. I'm open to persuasion on whether there should be IHT breaks on them (I lean against, but on pragmatic grounds as much as principle). I missed that it applied to other businesses too so thanks for flagging that up.
Just to underline, the USA was, at one point, truly terrified that Putin was about to use nukes
"Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine
"For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era."
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
Or change the law so what is illegal becomes legal, or at least some of them.
My only experience of ebikes is they have completely replaced classic bicycles for Deliveroo. Probably most are legal or legal-ish. Otoh, if I'd had a series of phones nicked by masked men on ebikes, my perspective would be different.
What slightly concerns me is that some of the opposition comes from the pedal cycle purists. If too fast is too fast, it should not matter if the machine is battery-assisted or cost £2,000 (after government subsidy) for legs only.
The problem is that the eBike users want to
1) Break the law. And ride a vehicle that is legally a moped class vehicle as a push bike. 2) Use dedicated cycling infrastructure and even dedicated pedestrian walkways as their roads.
Near me, the children are being chased out of the dedicated cycle lanes by the eMoped steps doing 25mph+. I can tell they are going that fast, because in a couple of places they are going past those signs that display your speed.
On the river side, we have had people knocked down on the embankment by eMoped clowns using the pedestrian space to zoom along at reckless speeds. One idiot went round a corner and slammed into a boat being taken out of a boat house. Fortunately the boat was a massive tub boat, so it wasn't damaged.
If you want to ride a moped, fine. Get insurance, training etc. Just because you have a slightly funky design of moped, why should the rules not apply?
Rules which were made because of the differences in danger to the user and others from vehicles as velocity and mass increase.
I have twice almost been run over by Lime bikes this year (three times the weight of a road bike) going full pelt 15.5mph. The first time by a drunk woman (no helmet, flying round a blind corner) and the second time by two exceptionally fat schoolchildren having a laugh by riding down a steep hill on it as fast as they could (definitely would have been hospitalised if that had hit me), clearly accelerating way past 15mph. I dodged it at the last second, but I reckon that impact could've killed me.
I'd insist on license and registration for all ebikes at this point. Somebody is going to get killed by one of those things.
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
Or change the law so what is illegal becomes legal, or at least some of them.
My only experience of ebikes is they have completely replaced classic bicycles for Deliveroo. Probably most are legal or legal-ish. Otoh, if I'd had a series of phones nicked by masked men on ebikes, my perspective would be different.
What slightly concerns me is that some of the opposition comes from the pedal cycle purists. If too fast is too fast, it should not matter if the machine is battery-assisted or cost £2,000 (after government subsidy) for legs only.
I'm not sure that pedal-cycle purists actually exist. It is universally recognised now that EAPCs / pedelecs extend the range of people who can get and use personal transport, and is a huge benefit.
You may have single-speed types (ie fixies), but they are more fashion victims than purists. And you get people who ride Ordinary Bicycles in Edwardian Dress, presumably with their berskirted ladies somewhere nearby in calico drawers - they are more like re-enactors with 16ft pikes. But then you also get similar people who do regularity trials in Austin 7s, or who have a 1960s Ferrari because they want to show off their wealth by having a full time mechanic to mend it twice a day.
There are the velominati, but that is backhanded self-satire, and more like the Fight Club crossed with the FSM. https://www.velominati.com/
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
I mean that bit of newspaper clipping only says "...a government curriculum review will be told". I'm sure they get told all kinds of mad stuff without agreeing it. 'Will be told' seems about as weak as 'Minister mulls' as an indication of what will actually happen.
So we "save" £100 million a year by doing away with a whole bunch of warships, helicopters, and drones earlier than planned. Good thing we definitely won't need any of those things anytime soon.
I note that the dismal 2.5% target still has no date. Without a date Labour might as well say it's a 5% target.
But let's not forget that defence cuts and more recently unmet targets are mainly a Conservative thing dating back to the 1980s. Labour's only been in for a few months.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
Yep. They are actually STUPID, and malevolently so
And let's look at their record so far
Inflation: rising Unemployment: rising Growth: nearly extinguished Taxes: rising Debt: rising Public services: cut Defence: cut Pensioners: told to freeze Farmers: told to fuck off Retailers: told to jump in a lake Chagos Islands: given away for nothing, indeed we have to PAY
That's just the first five months. And that's ignoring all the petty grift and corruption
I know. It's appalling isn't it? What sort of idiot would have voted for them? Oh!
We'd just experienced the (then, anyway) alternative, of course.
Reports Ukraine have fired Storm Shadow into Russia
If so I assume Starmer has given approval
12 of them it seems
Be surprised if it was that many unless there was a big concentration of resources.
Maybe 2 plus 10 secondary explosions that the Russians don't want to admit to?
Firing a volley, makes quite a bit of sense from a military point of view.
It does - but only if you have a decent supply.
I hope it was a juicy target.
Even if you only had 12, a volley might overwhelm more defences, and hit more targets unprepared than sending them one by one. And then you have the moral and practical effects of multiple hits *at the same time*.
Which is why volleys have been a thing since projectile weapons were invented in the depths of history.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
I mean that bit of newspaper clipping only says "...a government curriculum review will be told". I'm sure they get told all kinds of mad stuff without agreeing it. 'Will be told' seems about as weak as 'Minister mulls' as an indication of what will actually happen.
The person in CHARGE of the curriculum reivew is drenched with Wokeness, a super-Woke academic
We can be fairly certain that the result will be calamitously Woke, and will make English education worse. I think they've looked at the plunging standards in Welsh and Scottish schools under the Woke SNP and Welsh Labour and decided: wow, great, we can do that in England as well
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
No, because you'd have to sell the land to pay the bill and, by pennypacketing it off, thus make the farm unviable as a whole.
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Apologies if I missed it as I dived in mid-thread, and then my lunch hour disappeared immediately after posting so I'm late replying.
Actually I don't entirely disagree with you - farms and other family businesses should be treated the same. I'm open to persuasion on whether there should be IHT breaks on them (I lean against, but on pragmatic grounds as much as principle). I missed that it applied to other businesses too so thanks for flagging that up.
They are getting IHT breaks: paying half the rate everyone else does, getting 10 years to pay it & getting a £2million (for a couple) nil rate band.
From where I’m sitting it just seems that the landed gentry are hiding behind the facade of “poor benighted farmers” in a bid to preserve their entirely unearned wealth. I don’t see why they should not be subject to the same taxes as the rest of us.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
(narrator: viewcode said before on PB that if John McDonnell had run for the leadership and won, he would have won the GE. The lethal failure of the left was its failure to run Bernie Sanders in 2016 and John McDonnell later)
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
Thanks for pointing that out - I'd missed it in the earlier discussion. In my view farms should be subject to the same rate, if we believe that such allowances are a good idea at all.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I originally put £2-4m but simplified it (but cut out my assumed leverage of £3M).
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That's very eloquent, but, unfortunately, Ukraine is running out of soldiers, as they are all dead
Russia has to keep its ratio of losses to Ukrainian losses, no higher than three to one. Russia’s losses are well above that.
Are they? You're very credulous when it comes to Ukraine. I can recall you reassuring us that the Great Ukrainian Counter-Offensive was about to reach the Sea of Azov. They barely moved an inch, in reality, and at vast expense in men and materiel
No one knows the true toll of Ukrainian soldiers coz the Kyiv govt keeps it quiet (and understandably so, all wartime governments do this) but I can say, from having been there twice during this war, that an awful lack of young men is visible on the streets, and of those you do see, an awful lot are clearly injured, maimed, on crutches
Meanwhile thousands of young men - maybe tens or hundreds of thousands - have illegally fled Ukraine to avoid the draft. I've met a few of them
Recall all the other hopeful lies we've been told about this war
1. Putin has cancer 2. Putin will be overthrown 3. Russia will collapse under sanctions 4. Russia is mutinying 5. etc etc
It's hard to find the truth in the panto of lies, on all sides, but one should be almost as wary of Ukrainian propaganda as Russian propaganda
You’re just as credulous on the other side. You’ve been predicting imminent Russian victory since the war began. At one point, you were predicting that Putin would use nukes. You think that Putin is a man who can be trusted to adhere to a peace treaty.
No one disputes that Ukraine is suffering. But, so is Russia.
Russians are not some unbeatable race of super-soldiers, like Fremen.
You forget that Leon has visited the DMZ, so he's now an expert.
Just to underline, the USA was, at one point, truly terrified that Putin was about to use nukes
"Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine
"For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era."
He might still do so, 'Vladimir Putin has approved changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, setting out new conditions under which the country would consider using its arsenal.
The doctrine now says an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia.
The update was proposed in September and rubber stamped on Tuesday, the 1,000th day of the war with Ukraine.
It also follows Washington’s decision on Monday to allow Ukraine to fire long-range US missiles into Russia. 'Under the changes, a large attack on Russia with conventional missiles, drones or aircraft could meet the criteria for a nuclear response, as could an attack on Belarus or any critical threat to Russia's sovereignty.
Any aggression against Russia by a state which is a member of a coalition would be seen by Moscow as aggression from the whole group.'
Looking at business property generally, suppose you have a business worth £3m. That £3m comprises premises, plant and machinery, goodwill etc.
£2m of that gets taxed at 20% ie £400,000. That’s quite a stiff entry fee for the next generation to operate that business.
Getting a business worth £2.6m for nowt, such a hardship.
You are not getting it, now you are 400K in debt , you are running at a loss and so the factory folds and you have nothing , workers are all on benefits, no more taxes being paid , your suppliers have to cut back and so on. Are you pretending to be Bart Simpson.
If farms all ran at a loss they would not exist so that’s clearly bollocks Malcolm unless these farmers have a secret orchard of magic money trees.
Not all for sure but many do , and especially small ones.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
Will nobody think of the poor farmers with millions of pounds worth of assets?! I am glad that such poor downtrodden people have you to speak for them.
They are the backbone of our nation providing food for us all, working in all weathers for often little income. Those assets are what they use to provide food not weekly trips to the Maldives and regular Michelin starred meals,
Usual leftwing class warrior crap from you
Like I said, I am glad these poor people have you to stand up for their interests. I am not sure what they would do without you.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I originally put £2-4m but simplified it (but cut out my assumed leverage of £3M).
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That's very eloquent, but, unfortunately, Ukraine is running out of soldiers, as they are all dead
Russia has to keep its ratio of losses to Ukrainian losses, no higher than three to one. Russia’s losses are well above that.
Are they? You're very credulous when it comes to Ukraine. I can recall you reassuring us that the Great Ukrainian Counter-Offensive was about to reach the Sea of Azov. They barely moved an inch, in reality, and at vast expense in men and materiel
No one knows the true toll of Ukrainian soldiers coz the Kyiv govt keeps it quiet (and understandably so, all wartime governments do this) but I can say, from having been there twice during this war, that an awful lack of young men is visible on the streets, and of those you do see, an awful lot are clearly injured, maimed, on crutches
Meanwhile thousands of young men - maybe tens or hundreds of thousands - have illegally fled Ukraine to avoid the draft. I've met a few of them
Recall all the other hopeful lies we've been told about this war
1. Putin has cancer 2. Putin will be overthrown 3. Russia will collapse under sanctions 4. Russia is mutinying 5. etc etc
It's hard to find the truth in the panto of lies, on all sides, but one should be almost as wary of Ukrainian propaganda as Russian propaganda
You’re just as credulous on the other side. You’ve been predicting imminent Russian victory since the war began. At one point, you were predicting that Putin would use nukes. You think that Putin is a man who can be trusted to adhere to a peace treaty.
No one disputes that Ukraine is suffering. But, so is Russia.
Russians are not some unbeatable race of super-soldiers, like Fremen.
You forget that Leon has visited the DMZ, so he's now an expert.
Have you been to Ukraine, Nigel? And talked to lots of Ukrainians, in Ukraine? And seen the bombs and heard the missiles and toured the shelters?
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
I mean that bit of newspaper clipping only says "...a government curriculum review will be told". I'm sure they get told all kinds of mad stuff without agreeing it. 'Will be told' seems about as weak as 'Minister mulls' as an indication of what will actually happen.
The person in CHARGE of the curriculum reivew is drenched with Wokeness, a super-Woke academic
We can be fairly certain that the result will be calamitously Woke, and will make English education worse. I think they've looked at the plunging standards in Welsh and Scottish schools under the Woke SNP and Welsh Labour and decided: wow, great, we can do that in England as well
"Drenched in wokeness" makes you sound like an Inquisitor finding heresy everywhere.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
Locally, a chap working at the library did a series of reading and sing alongs (with guitar) from the various popular kids books. Julia Donaldson featured heavily. Did this on a weekend morning. When the library was basically empty.
After a few weeks, the kids section of the library was full, for his performances.
Not long after, he was told to stop it. Apparently the crowd he was drawing was too middle class and risked excluding non-middle class people.
Our local library was extolling Transgender week recently. Of course, no-one was interested.
They are viewed by many in the public sector as a key vector through which to promote and promulgate their EDI agenda.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
No, because you'd have to sell the land to pay the bill and, by pennypacketing it off, thus make the farm unviable as a whole.
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
So you’re completely fine with me going out today, spending my entire family wealth on farmland, outbidding real farmers in the process, in order to evade inheritance tax on my estate?
Because to be clear: that’s what you’re arguing for if you think farmland should retain it’s 100% relief on IHT. Real farmers being outbid by the wealthy looking for assets to park their wealth in that will let them avoid paying the taxes everyone else has to pay.
This change isn’t an attack on farmers: Farmers should be welcoming it. Combined with the leaked possible changes to sale of land for planning it will re-price agricultural land back to the price that actually reflects it’s value as farmland, making UK farming economically viable.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
Will nobody think of the poor farmers with millions of pounds worth of assets?! I am glad that such poor downtrodden people have you to speak for them.
They are the backbone of our nation providing food for us all, working in all weathers for often little income. Those assets are what they use to provide food not weekly trips to the Maldives and regular Michelin starred meals,
Usual leftwing class warrior crap from you
Like I said, I am glad these poor people have you to stand up for their interests. I am not sure what they would do without you.
You're coming across like a real prick.
I personally think the landed gentry crying poverty to be worse but your views may vary.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Apologies if I missed it as I dived in mid-thread, and then my lunch hour disappeared immediately after posting so I'm late replying.
Actually I don't entirely disagree with you - farms and other family businesses should be treated the same. I'm open to persuasion on whether there should be IHT breaks on them (I lean against, but on pragmatic grounds as much as principle). I missed that it applied to other businesses too so thanks for flagging that up.
They are getting IHT breaks: paying half the rate everyone else does, getting 10 years to pay it & getting a £2million (for a couple) nil rate band.
From where I’m sitting it just seems that the landed gentry are hiding behind the facade of “poor benighted farmers” in a bid to preserve their entirely unearned wealth. I don’t see why they should not be subject to the same taxes as the rest of us.
As it is a tax on the land which feeds the nation and such a tax makes most family farms unviable, destroying the food supply and effective management of the land in the country
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
I mean that bit of newspaper clipping only says "...a government curriculum review will be told". I'm sure they get told all kinds of mad stuff without agreeing it. 'Will be told' seems about as weak as 'Minister mulls' as an indication of what will actually happen.
The person in CHARGE of the curriculum reivew is drenched with Wokeness, a super-Woke academic
We can be fairly certain that the result will be calamitously Woke, and will make English education worse. I think they've looked at the plunging standards in Welsh and Scottish schools under the Woke SNP and Welsh Labour and decided: wow, great, we can do that in England as well
"Drenched in wokeness" makes you sound like an Inquisitor finding heresy everywhere.
It is, though.
This Government won't last. The only thing that could keep it in is a perfect split of opposition votes between LD, Tories and Reform (aka what happens in Wales) but is something that genuinely worries me.
Looking at business property generally, suppose you have a business worth £3m. That £3m comprises premises, plant and machinery, goodwill etc.
£2m of that gets taxed at 20% ie £400,000. That’s quite a stiff entry fee for the next generation to operate that business.
Getting a business worth £2.6m for nowt, such a hardship.
You are not getting it, now you are 400K in debt , you are running at a loss and so the factory folds and you have nothing , workers are all on benefits, no more taxes being paid , your suppliers have to cut back and so on. Are you pretending to be Bart Simpson.
How could a farm with net assets that incur a IHT bill of £400,000 be in debt?
It would have to be worth at least £3.3 million. That could be £20 million assets and £16.7 million in liabilities, or any other combination that adds up to £3.3 million.
DOH it is worth 3M, another Economics for Dummies reader. It was previous poster who suggested the value and the IHT payable, I merely did the simple arithmetic any 7 year old should be able to do pointed out how stupid it was.
Ukraine has fired British-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time. Twelve of the weapons were fired into Kursk by Ukrainian armed forces.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
No, because you'd have to sell the land to pay the bill and, by pennypacketing it off, thus make the farm unviable as a whole.
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
So you’re completely fine with me going out today, spending my entire family wealth on farmland, outbidding real farmers in the process, in order to evade inheritance tax on my estate?
Because to be clear: that’s what you’re arguing for if you think farmland should retain it’s 100% relief on IHT. Real farmers being outbid by the wealthy looking for assets to park their wealth in that will let them avoid paying the taxes everyone else has to pay.
This change isn’t an attack on farmers: Farmers should be welcoming it. Combined with the leaked possible changes to sale of land for planning it will re-price agricultural land back to the price that actually reflects it’s value as farmland, making UK farming economically viable.
If you were prepared to charge your tenant farmers a peppercorn rent in perpetuity, I'd be more than happy for you to avoid IHT, or other taxes, on that asset
Bellowing Burghart was somewhat surprising at DPMQs
When I briefly knew him a bit at Oxford, he always seemed to speak softly
Rookie error. New leaders speak loudly to make themselves heard over the barracking, forgetting that there are microphones everywhere that will pick up normal speech and make shouters seem deranged. They've all done it.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
Will nobody think of the poor farmers with millions of pounds worth of assets?! I am glad that such poor downtrodden people have you to speak for them.
They are the backbone of our nation providing food for us all, working in all weathers for often little income. Those assets are what they use to provide food not weekly trips to the Maldives and regular Michelin starred meals,
Usual leftwing class warrior crap from you
Like I said, I am glad these poor people have you to stand up for their interests. I am not sure what they would do without you.
You're coming across like a real prick.
I personally think the landed gentry crying poverty to be worse but your views may vary.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
I mean that bit of newspaper clipping only says "...a government curriculum review will be told". I'm sure they get told all kinds of mad stuff without agreeing it. 'Will be told' seems about as weak as 'Minister mulls' as an indication of what will actually happen.
The person in CHARGE of the curriculum reivew is drenched with Wokeness, a super-Woke academic
We can be fairly certain that the result will be calamitously Woke, and will make English education worse. I think they've looked at the plunging standards in Welsh and Scottish schools under the Woke SNP and Welsh Labour and decided: wow, great, we can do that in England as well
"Drenched in wokeness" makes you sound like an Inquisitor finding heresy everywhere.
The chair of the Curriculum Review is Becky Francis CBE
Here are some of her more famous papers:
"Power plays: primary school children’s constructions of gender, power and adult work (1998)"
"The gendered subject: students’ subject preferences and discussions of gender and subject ability (2000)"
"Understanding minority ethnic achievement: race, gender, class and ‘success’ (2006)"
"Re/theorising gender: Female masculinity and male femininity in the classroom? (2010)"
"Reassessing ‘ability’ grouping: improving practice for equity and attainment (2020)."
Ukraine has fired British-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time. Twelve of the weapons were fired into Kursk by Ukrainian armed forces.
Still no confirmation from Starmer.
If true the UK is at its biggest risk of being involved with nuclear war with Russia since the pre Gorbachev era Cold War
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
No, because you'd have to sell the land to pay the bill and, by pennypacketing it off, thus make the farm unviable as a whole.
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
So you’re completely fine with me going out today, spending my entire family wealth on farmland, outbidding real farmers in the process, in order to evade inheritance tax on my estate?
Because to be clear: that’s what you’re arguing for if you think farmland should retain it’s 100% relief on IHT. Real farmers being outbid by the wealthy looking for assets to park their wealth in that will let them avoid paying the taxes everyone else has to pay.
This change isn’t an attack on farmers: Farmers should be welcoming it. Combined with the leaked possible changes to sale of land for planning it will re-price agricultural land back to the price that actually reflects it’s value as farmland, making UK farming economically viable.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
I mean that bit of newspaper clipping only says "...a government curriculum review will be told". I'm sure they get told all kinds of mad stuff without agreeing it. 'Will be told' seems about as weak as 'Minister mulls' as an indication of what will actually happen.
The person in CHARGE of the curriculum reivew is drenched with Wokeness, a super-Woke academic
We can be fairly certain that the result will be calamitously Woke, and will make English education worse. I think they've looked at the plunging standards in Welsh and Scottish schools under the Woke SNP and Welsh Labour and decided: wow, great, we can do that in England as well
"Drenched in wokeness" makes you sound like an Inquisitor finding heresy everywhere.
It is, though.
This Government won't last. The only thing that could keep it in is a perfect split of opposition votes between LD, Tories and Reform (aka what happens in Wales) but is something that genuinely worries me.
On Wales, the Welsh Labour government is seeking to persuade Plaid to vote for its budget as it is one short of passing it
If Plaid and the other parties refuse, then the Welsh Labour government will have serious problems
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
Will nobody think of the poor farmers with millions of pounds worth of assets?! I am glad that such poor downtrodden people have you to speak for them.
They are the backbone of our nation providing food for us all, working in all weathers for often little income. Those assets are what they use to provide food not weekly trips to the Maldives and regular Michelin starred meals,
Usual leftwing class warrior crap from you
Like I said, I am glad these poor people have you to stand up for their interests. I am not sure what they would do without you.
You're coming across like a real prick.
I personally think the landed gentry crying poverty to be worse but your views may vary.
Famers are 'landed gentry' ?
It's embarrassing. All the deep-rooted prejudices of the Left are coming out on display here.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
No, because you'd have to sell the land to pay the bill and, by pennypacketing it off, thus make the farm unviable as a whole.
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
So you’re completely fine with me going out today, spending my entire family wealth on farmland, outbidding real farmers in the process, in order to evade inheritance tax on my estate?
Because to be clear: that’s what you’re arguing for if you think farmland should retain it’s 100% relief on IHT. Real farmers being outbid by the wealthy looking for assets to park their wealth in that will let them avoid paying the taxes everyone else has to pay.
This change isn’t an attack on farmers: Farmers should be welcoming it. Combined with the leaked possible changes to sale of land for planning it will re-price agricultural land back to the price that actually reflects it’s value as farmland, making UK farming economically viable.
If you were prepared to charge your tenant farmers a peppercorn rent in perpetuity, I'd be more than happy for you to avoid IHT, or other taxes, on that asset
Hah. Sadly the wealthy individuals doing this are definitely not charging a peppercorn rent.
The main reason public sector productivity is so poor is the inability to move unproductive people out. The ultimate tool for increasing output per worker is to shit can the least productive ones which is something that private sector businesses do all the time. Until that attitude is brought to the public sector no amount of "investment" will help. The lazy and the feckless are attracted to the public sector because they know once they're in it's impossible to be removed regardless of how shit they are at the job.
Change this and suddenly public sector productivity will shoot up as those lazy buggers start to fear for their next salary.
To broaden the point, where's the incentive to sack people who aren't performing - where is the incentive to perform at all? The money comes from Government grant, so the incentive is actually to fail, because failing services get more money thrown at them. The NHS has been very successful at failing for years. An efficient, high performance public service would see its budget reduced the next year.
What we really need is a total reordering of incentives within the public sector, where possible based on the money following the user, and the user having choice. If hospitals and schools had to attract patients and pupils to get funding, all the perverse incentives would be reversed and the services grow better and more efficient.
I'm plowing thru (I know, I know ) Abby Innes's "Late Soviet Britain" and she makes a very convincing case as to why that simply doesn't work. Basically if you run the public sector like the private sector you lose control due to the principle-agent problem, so to regain control you impose authorities, regulators, targets etc, and you end up with a brundlefly hybrid with the disadvantages of both, lying on the lab floor pleading to be killed.
It sounds good in theory. It isn't in practice. And we have about forty years of evidence for that now.
I don't know what 'the principle agent problem' is - if I did I could opine. I'd say 'losing control' is a feature not a bug - Whitehall controlling things appears to be at the root of most of the problems we face, and has been for more than 5 decades.
As for practice, of course we don't have 40 years of experience. Market based reforms haven't taken place in our public services, even at pilot level as far as I'm aware.
If you outsource a thing to somebody else, that person has their own goals and will deviate from yours over times. You need to prevent them so you end up imposing controls, making a mockery of the outsourcing in the first place.
I was referring to the Thatcher reforms of outsourcing, followed by the Blair reforms of targets etc. We tried it. It didn't work. We tried to make it better. We made it worse. By the time we got to Covid it got out-and-out corrupt. And we keep saying "more bureaucracy will fix it!" It won't. And we keep saying "make it behave like the private sector!". And it doesn't
That doesn't really address my point though. What you're talking about could be termed 'the privatisation of supply'. What I am talking about is the privatisation of demand. When you outsource supply, there may be some efficiency benefits, but the Government is still the client and the system does not change fundamentally - and it brings its own issues. When you privatise the demand, you're reversing that. It doesn't matter whether the supplier is in public or private hands. It could be entirely public, but as long as the money and therefore the incentive comes from the user, and the user is free to go elsewhere, with the requisite effect on income, it will work.
I'm not sure what you mean by "privatisation of supply" (school vouchers?), but I have a horrible suspicion that we are agreeing at this point.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
No, because you'd have to sell the land to pay the bill and, by pennypacketing it off, thus make the farm unviable as a whole.
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
So you’re completely fine with me going out today, spending my entire family wealth on farmland, outbidding real farmers in the process, in order to evade inheritance tax on my estate?
Because to be clear: that’s what you’re arguing for if you think farmland should retain it’s 100% relief on IHT. Real farmers being outbid by the wealthy looking for assets to park their wealth in that will let them avoid paying the taxes everyone else has to pay.
This change isn’t an attack on farmers: Farmers should be welcoming it. Combined with the leaked possible changes to sale of land for planning it will re-price agricultural land back to the price that actually reflects it’s value as farmland, making UK farming economically viable.
You're a timewaster.
Next.
So you’re completely unwilling to engage with reality. Good to know.
- Neither Russia, nor Ukraine has an unlimited supply of soldiers. As always, some people seem to note one side's losses without noting the other's.
- Like the First World War, losses in offensive operations have been utterly horrendous. Casualty ratios of 6-1 are the norm here. This makes a successful Ukrainian offensive exceptionally difficult, but it also largely removes Russia's population advantage as they will use up at least as high a % of the population as Ukraine if they're attacking.
- Defenders will always have more people who will fight. If London was under attack by the Russians, every man, woman and child (except perhaps Malc) would grab arms to defend it. It's much harder for the invader.
- Putin has been much better at clamping down on internal dissent than I would have expected. Russian losses have been something like 700-750,000 dead and wounded, which is 50x higher than Afghanistan. Given how few young people there are in Russia, I would have expected mass demonstrations from mothers, but that's simply not happened.
- Early on in the conflict, the impact on the Russian economy was relatively modest. That is not the case any more. Inflation has started rising, with the price of vegetables and onions soaring (+70% this year) due to a lack of workers on farms (because they've all been shipped off to Ukraine).
- I've been surprised by the lack of trouble in other part's of Russia's empire. I would have expected the Chechens to kick off, simply because troops from Moscow can't come running any more.
- Can North Korea make a difference? Well, there are lots of North Koreans, but they are likely to be extremely poor and how well equipped will they be?
Ukraine has fired British-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time. Twelve of the weapons were fired into Kursk by Ukrainian armed forces.
Still no confirmation from Starmer.
If true the UK is at its biggest risk of being involved with nuclear war with Russia since the pre Gorbachev era Cold War
Healey has just made a (non-)statement in the House in reply to a question about these rumours.
There is no prospect whatsoever of a nuclear war over this. Storm Shadows have been used previously into Crimea, which Putin claims to believe is part of Russia, with no meaningful response, never mind one which would destroy his own country.
So we "save" £100 million a year by doing away with a whole bunch of warships, helicopters, and drones earlier than planned. Good thing we definitely won't need any of those things anytime soon.
I note that the dismal 2.5% target still has no date. Without a date Labour might as well say it's a 5% target.
..The weapons systems on the chopping block are:
• The Royal Navy's two amphibious assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. They will be taken out of service at the end of the year - around a decade early in a blow to the ability of the Royal Marines to launch land assaults from the sea. • A fleet of 17 Royal Air Force Puma helicopters, as well as 14 of the military's oldest Chinook helicopters • A fleet of 47 Watchkeeper drones - each worth about £5m - barely six years since they entered into service • HMS Northumberland, a Type 23 frigate, which is in need of costly repairs and has already operated well beyond an 18-year out-of-service date • Two large Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler - vessels which carry fuel and supplies to enable the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers to operate around the world...
Well, we aren't going to be doing any amphibious assaults.
Watchkeeper is obsolete - it was well over a decade in development - and has difficulties flying in bad weather. We way overpaid for it in the first place, and drone tech has moved on. They are a useful capability, though. Ukraine ?
Frigate - can't afford the repairs; scrap or sell.
Auxiliary ships - we're not going to operate the carriers much longer, I suspect; scrap or sell.
The Pumas were only designed to be in service until 2025 when last upgraded. Perhaps they too would be of use in Ukraine ?
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
God Almighty! This is not hard: a farm is a business. A house is not. If the former is taxed in this way it makes the farm uneconomic and the risk is that the business and all the externalities associated with that business are lost. If the same land is acquired by a corporation, it pays no IHT. Why should a corporation be exempt?
Farming takes a long view - at least when done well. That is why there is a value in allowing that to continue. Stewardship of the land for future generations has a value - not just for those living and working on the farm but for all of us. Whereas houses are bought and sold all the time. There is no particular reason why families should live in the same house for generation after generation.
I simply do not understand why Labour has gone after family owned businesses.
Ukraine has fired British-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time. Twelve of the weapons were fired into Kursk by Ukrainian armed forces.
Still no confirmation from Starmer.
If true the UK is at its biggest risk of being involved with nuclear war with Russia since the pre Gorbachev era Cold War
Healey has just made a (non-)statement in the House in reply to a question about these rumours.
There is no prospect whatsoever of a nuclear war over this. Storm Shadows have been used previously into Crimea, which Putin claims to believe is part of Russia, with no meaningful response, never mind one which would destroy his own country.
Yes.
If blowing up the high profile headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet with Storm Shadow wasn't enough to elicit much of a response I'm not sure why a command centre (?) in Kursk would be very different.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
No, because you'd have to sell the land to pay the bill and, by pennypacketing it off, thus make the farm unviable as a whole.
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
So you’re completely fine with me going out today, spending my entire family wealth on farmland, outbidding real farmers in the process, in order to evade inheritance tax on my estate?
Because to be clear: that’s what you’re arguing for if you think farmland should retain it’s 100% relief on IHT. Real farmers being outbid by the wealthy looking for assets to park their wealth in that will let them avoid paying the taxes everyone else has to pay.
This change isn’t an attack on farmers: Farmers should be welcoming it. Combined with the leaked possible changes to sale of land for planning it will re-price agricultural land back to the price that actually reflects it’s value as farmland, making UK farming economically viable.
You're a timewaster.
Next.
So you’re completely unwilling to engage with reality. Good to know.
Sorry to hear you're having these existential struggles with yourself.
When you've figured them out please do let us know and we'll welcome you back with open arms.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
God Almighty! This is not hard: a farm is a business. A house is not. If the former is taxed in this way it makes the farm uneconomic and the risk is that the business and all the externalities associated with that business are lost. If the same land is acquired by a corporation, it pays no IHT. Why should a corporation be exempt?
Farming takes a long view - at least when done well. That is why there is a value in allowing that to continue. Stewardship of the land for future generations has a value - not just for those living and working on the farm but for all of us. Whereas houses are bought and sold all the time. There is no particular reason why families should live in the same house for generation after generation.
I simply do not understand why Labour has gone after family owned businesses.
UK owners of corporations do pay IHT, so IHT ends up being paid on the asset one way or another if the ultimate owner is UK resident.
There is a valid question here about the taxation of UK land owned by foreign entities though.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
God Almighty! This is not hard: a farm is a business. A house is not. If the former is taxed in this way it makes the farm uneconomic and the risk is that the business and all the externalities associated with that business are lost. If the same land is acquired by a corporation, it pays no IHT. Why should a corporation be exempt?
Farming takes a long view - at least when done well. That is why there is a value in allowing that to continue. Stewardship of the land for future generations has a value - not just for those living and working on the farm but for all of us. Whereas houses are bought and sold all the time. There is no particular reason why families should live in the same house for generation after generation.
I simply do not understand why Labour has gone after family owned businesses.
They genuinely seem to think they're going after the privileged, Clarkson, Dyson, Lloyd-Webber, and various Lords and landed gentry.
It says an awful lot about their warped world view.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That is so well-explained.
The Institute for the Study of War report paints a quite different picture to that headline.
Logistics are not everything, just almost everything. If Russia is losing men and equipment at rates that are irreplaceable, then Russia loses the war.
Unfortunately Ukraine is also suffering losses. Losses that are higher than they could be, because of Western timidity and half-heartedness in providing support.
I doubt that Ukraine has the reserves of men and equipment to fight their way through 100,000 North Korean conscripts, unless we provide them with more and better weapons so they can do so while suffering lower casualties themselves.
The problem facing the Korean Armistice advocates is that Putin can see Western resolve faltering, and so the incentive is for him to hang in and give one more push for total victory. How do they propose to force Russia to settle for what they have?
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
This is why central government control of the curriculum is a bad idea.
Um, why are we doing this only to save a measly half a billion over 5 years? That's insane. Reeves loses half a billion before she's had breakfast most days.
Is this really the time to be penny-pinching on Defence?
God no. Is everybody in British politics secretly employed by the Russians/Americans/55 Tufton St/whoever? It's becoming increasingly difficult to believe they are on the side of the British.
Is this really the time to be penny-pinching on Defence?
God no. Is everybody in British politics secretly employed by the Russians/Americans/55 Tufton St/whoever? It's becoming increasingly difficult to believe they are on the side of the British.
Think of politicians around the world, they have more in common with each other than the people they govern mostly. They are the nation of politician land....they govern in favour of that
Comments
And let's look at their record so far
Inflation: rising
Unemployment: rising
Growth: nearly extinguished
Taxes: rising
Debt: rising
Public services: cut
Defence: cut
Pensioners: told to freeze
Farmers: told to fuck off
Retailers: told to jump in a lake
Chagos Islands: given away for nothing, indeed we have to PAY
That's just the first five months. And that's ignoring all the petty grift and corruption
1) Break the law. And ride a vehicle that is legally a moped class vehicle as a push bike.
2) Use dedicated cycling infrastructure and even dedicated pedestrian walkways as their roads.
Near me, the children are being chased out of the dedicated cycle lanes by the eMoped steps doing 25mph+. I can tell they are going that fast, because in a couple of places they are going past those signs that display your speed.
On the river side, we have had people knocked down on the embankment by eMoped clowns using the pedestrian space to zoom along at reckless speeds. One idiot went round a corner and slammed into a boat being taken out of a boat house. Fortunately the boat was a massive tub boat, so it wasn't damaged.
If you want to ride a moped, fine. Get insurance, training etc. Just because you have a slightly funky design of moped, why should the rules not apply?
Rules which were made because of the differences in danger to the user and others from vehicles as velocity and mass increase.
Maybe 2 plus 10 secondary explosions that the Russians don't want to admit to?
It would have to be worth at least £3.3 million. That could be £20 million assets and £16.7 million in liabilities, or any other combination that adds up to £3.3 million.
A tricky balance - use it now, or use it slowly in case we need it to survive after Mr Trump does what he and his people have been saying they are going to do?
cut 👎
restructure and modernise 👍
Also, I have actually been to Ukraine twice, and been all over, from Lviv to Chernivtsi, from Kyiv to Odesa, I've been bombed and droned and I've seen the destruction. There is nothing like eye witness evidence for clarifying one's thoughts
Fnally as for the nukes thing, yes I was agitated, it did look horribly possible at one point. And do you know who else was agitated? The White House, the CIA and the Pentagon. At the very same time I was hyperventilating, they too were horribly scared that Putin might actually do it: drop a bomb of some kind
"Months into Russia’s war in Ukraine, the United States had intelligence pointing to “highly sensitive, credible conversations inside the Kremlin” that President Vladimir Putin was seriously considering using nuclear weapons to avoid major battlefield losses, journalist Bob Woodward reported in his new book, “War.”
The U.S. intelligence pointed to a 50% chance that Putin would use tactical nukes if Ukrainian forces surrounded 30,000 Russian troops in the southern city of Kherson, the book says"
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nuclear-weapons-90cb3bb3499a5e211095b3f93173a575
I hope it was a juicy target.
I note that the dismal 2.5% target still has no date. Without a date Labour might as well say it's a 5% target.
If reports storm shadow have been fired into Russia are confirmed then I assume you will not be impressed by that either
https://www.politico.eu/article/u-s-embassy-in-kyiv-closes-over-anticipated-air-attack/.
Actually I don't entirely disagree with you - farms and other family businesses should be treated the same. I'm open to persuasion on whether there should be IHT breaks on them (I lean against, but on pragmatic grounds as much as principle). I missed that it applied to other businesses too so thanks for flagging that up.
"Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine
"For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/09/us/politics/biden-nuclear-russia-ukraine.html
We shall see.
I'd insist on license and registration for all ebikes at this point. Somebody is going to get killed by one of those things.
You may have single-speed types (ie fixies), but they are more fashion victims than purists. And you get people who ride Ordinary Bicycles in Edwardian Dress, presumably with their berskirted ladies somewhere nearby in calico drawers - they are more like re-enactors with 16ft pikes. But then you also get similar people who do regularity trials in Austin 7s, or who have a 1960s Ferrari because they want to show off their wealth by having a full time mechanic to mend it twice a day.
There are the velominati, but that is backhanded self-satire, and more like the Fight Club crossed with the FSM.
https://www.velominati.com/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/18/aircraft-carriers-face-being-mothballed-cost-cutting-plan/ (£££)
But let's not forget that defence cuts and more recently unmet targets are mainly a Conservative thing dating back to the 1980s. Labour's only been in for a few months.
If true then I expect it to become a media story very quickly
Which is why volleys have been a thing since projectile weapons were invented in the depths of history.
When I briefly knew him a bit at Oxford, he always seemed to speak softly
We can be fairly certain that the result will be calamitously Woke, and will make English education worse. I think they've looked at the plunging standards in Welsh and Scottish schools under the Woke SNP and Welsh Labour and decided: wow, great, we can do that in England as well
As for missile fragments: if it's in the Russian official media, don't believe it. If it's from the Russian milbloggers, it might be more reliable...
But, of course, you know this: you simply want to defend this policy and the way you want to do this is to endlessly repeat your (shit) soundbites.
From where I’m sitting it just seems that the landed gentry are hiding behind the facade of “poor benighted farmers” in a bid to preserve their entirely unearned wealth. I don’t see why they should not be subject to the same taxes as the rest of us.
The doctrine now says an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia.
The update was proposed in September and rubber stamped on Tuesday, the 1,000th day of the war with Ukraine.
It also follows Washington’s decision on Monday to allow Ukraine to fire long-range US missiles into Russia.
'Under the changes, a large attack on Russia with conventional missiles, drones or aircraft could meet the criteria for a nuclear response, as could an attack on Belarus or any critical threat to Russia's sovereignty.
Any aggression against Russia by a state which is a member of a coalition would be seen by Moscow as aggression from the whole group.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4v0rey0jzo
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/20/russia-ukraine-war-live-biden-us-weapons-missiles-putin-nuclear?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
As Ukraine only has around 50, let's hope the targets were high value.
No. You haven't
They are viewed by many in the public sector as a key vector through which to promote and promulgate their EDI agenda.
Because to be clear: that’s what you’re arguing for if you think farmland should retain it’s 100% relief on IHT. Real farmers being outbid by the wealthy looking for assets to park their wealth in that will let them avoid paying the taxes everyone else has to pay.
This change isn’t an attack on farmers: Farmers should be welcoming it. Combined with the leaked possible changes to sale of land for planning it will re-price agricultural land back to the price that actually reflects it’s value as farmland, making UK farming economically viable.
This Government won't last. The only thing that could keep it in is a perfect split of opposition votes between LD, Tories and Reform (aka what happens in Wales) but is something that genuinely worries me.
Ukraine has fired British-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time. Twelve of the weapons were fired into Kursk by Ukrainian armed forces.
Here are some of her more famous papers:
"Power plays: primary school children’s constructions of gender, power and adult work (1998)"
"The gendered subject: students’ subject preferences and discussions of gender and subject ability (2000)"
"Understanding minority ethnic achievement: race, gender, class and ‘success’ (2006)"
"Re/theorising gender: Female masculinity and male femininity in the classroom? (2010)"
"Reassessing ‘ability’ grouping: improving practice for equity and attainment (2020)."
Nuff said
If true the UK is at its biggest risk of being involved with nuclear war with Russia since the pre Gorbachev era Cold War
Next.
NEW THREAD
If Plaid and the other parties refuse, then the Welsh Labour government will have serious problems
https://x.com/psosgreaterglas/status/1859239583004697035?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
And so it begins,,
The Millennium Elephant has arrived.
https://bsky.app/profile/millenniumelephant.bsky.social
(For anyone with short memories: https://millenniumelephant.blogspot.com/)
- Neither Russia, nor Ukraine has an unlimited supply of soldiers. As always, some people seem to note one side's losses without noting the other's.
- Like the First World War, losses in offensive operations have been utterly horrendous. Casualty ratios of 6-1 are the norm here. This makes a successful Ukrainian offensive exceptionally difficult, but it also largely removes Russia's population advantage as they will use up at least as high a % of the population as Ukraine if they're attacking.
- Defenders will always have more people who will fight. If London was under attack by the Russians, every man, woman and child (except perhaps Malc) would grab arms to defend it. It's much harder for the invader.
- Putin has been much better at clamping down on internal dissent than I would have expected. Russian losses have been something like 700-750,000 dead and wounded, which is 50x higher than Afghanistan. Given how few young people there are in Russia, I would have expected mass demonstrations from mothers, but that's simply not happened.
- Early on in the conflict, the impact on the Russian economy was relatively modest. That is not the case any more. Inflation has started rising, with the price of vegetables and onions soaring (+70% this year) due to a lack of workers on farms (because they've all been shipped off to Ukraine).
- I've been surprised by the lack of trouble in other part's of Russia's empire. I would have expected the Chechens to kick off, simply because troops from Moscow can't come running any more.
- Can North Korea make a difference? Well, there are lots of North Koreans, but they are likely to be extremely poor and how well equipped will they be?
There is no prospect whatsoever of a nuclear war over this. Storm Shadows have been used previously into Crimea, which Putin claims to believe is part of Russia, with no meaningful response, never mind one which would destroy his own country.
• The Royal Navy's two amphibious assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. They will be taken out of service at the end of the year - around a decade early in a blow to the ability of the Royal Marines to launch land assaults from the sea.
• A fleet of 17 Royal Air Force Puma helicopters, as well as 14 of the military's oldest Chinook helicopters
• A fleet of 47 Watchkeeper drones - each worth about £5m - barely six years since they entered into service
• HMS Northumberland, a Type 23 frigate, which is in need of costly repairs and has already operated well beyond an 18-year out-of-service date
• Two large Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler - vessels which carry fuel and supplies to enable the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers to operate around the world...
Well, we aren't going to be doing any amphibious assaults.
Watchkeeper is obsolete - it was well over a decade in development - and has difficulties flying in bad weather. We way overpaid for it in the first place, and drone tech has moved on.
They are a useful capability, though. Ukraine ?
Frigate - can't afford the repairs; scrap or sell.
Auxiliary ships - we're not going to operate the carriers much longer, I suspect; scrap or sell.
The Pumas were only designed to be in service until 2025 when last upgraded. Perhaps they too would be of use in Ukraine ?
Farming takes a long view - at least when done well. That is why there is a value in allowing that to continue. Stewardship of the land for future generations has a value - not just for those living and working on the farm but for all of us. Whereas houses are bought and sold all the time. There is no particular reason why families should live in the same house for generation after generation.
I simply do not understand why Labour has gone after family owned businesses.
If blowing up the high profile headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet with Storm Shadow wasn't enough to elicit much of a response I'm not sure why a command centre (?) in Kursk would be very different.
When you've figured them out please do let us know and we'll welcome you back with open arms.
There is a valid question here about the taxation of UK land owned by foreign entities though.
It says an awful lot about their warped world view.
I doubt that Ukraine has the reserves of men and equipment to fight their way through 100,000 North Korean conscripts, unless we provide them with more and better weapons so they can do so while suffering lower casualties themselves.
The problem facing the Korean Armistice advocates is that Putin can see Western resolve faltering, and so the incentive is for him to hang in and give one more push for total victory. How do they propose to force Russia to settle for what they have?
Perhaps you are wrong about whether Russia will back up their bluster with action.