To pick up on some of the history, I've seen it noted the failure of the Spring Offensive by the Germans against the allies in 1918 was in part due to the Germans occupying French villages and unovering food and drink, the like and quality of which they had not experienced (the country was close to revolution and famine in 1918). Gorging themselves on the French bounty slowed the advance and allowed the French and British to regroup and ultimately, with the Americans, their superiority enabled them to reverse the advance.
The Prussian state was probably the most militarised in Europe but in 1762 came within an inch of total defeat and was no match (initially) for revolutionary France (though the contribution of Blucher at Waterloo is one of those questions always debated). Eventually, it would be the driving force behind the Unification of Germany in 1871 and the concept of "Prussian militarism" was very real until 1945.
I think it comes down to what you are fighting for as much as what you are fighting against and how that is couched in propaganda and the scale of forces arranged against you. Sometimes, however much you may wish it otherwise, the forces arranged against you are so overwhelming as to make either suicide or subjugation your only two options.
Famously, Abraham Lincoln claimed the Americans would "live as free men or die by suicide". We also know many Nazis couldn't contemplate a life without Hitler and took their own lives as did the Japanese thinking the Emperor would be removed by the victorious allies. Even in the post war period, the phrase "better dead than Red" was widely used. The decision to use nuclear weapons, one might argue, would be the ultimate act of national suicide.
There are other examples when the invader is seen as a liberator (look at how some Ukrainians welcomed the invading Wehrmacht in 1941) rather than an oppressor.
There is also the sense, as an aggressor, of you either overcoming an implacable foe to save your own country or freeing an oppressed population from a brutal tyranny. Neither may be true or accurate but that's what is drummed into you as the truth which, as we know, is war's first casualty.
That's a very good analysis. As someone who twice voted for military action in the Commons and later regretted it, I've come to feel that all analyses showing one side as morally superior should be subject to challenge. WWII is however a good example where the answer is still "yes".
For Britain, yes. For the empire and dominions, yes. For our gallant allies, the United States and Soviet Union, well, they entered the war only when they were themselves attacked; any alignment with principle was coincidental.
Pearl Harbor was December 1941 - yet from June 1940 America was providing a lot of support to Britain. Enough that in September 1940 Italy, Germany and Japan tried to head off America joining in.
Yes, the United States under FDR was broadly supportive of Britain, although even here we should remember that everything had to be bought and paid for with bases, technology and hard cash (and FDR also refused to cancel our First World War debt). But the fact remains that America did not enter the war until it was attacked.
We should also be grateful that Hitler declared war on America. Heaven knows why. A modern equivalent would be Britain declaring war on Mars. We have no means of attacking or invading Mars, and it just riles up the Martians. But it helped cement America into the European war, so well done, Adolf.
ETA as an aside, while we are condemning Nathan Gill for taking brown envelopes from hostile powers, we should remember a backbench Conservative MP had his own private relationship with the NY Governor and later President, who was an avid reader of Churchill's histories.
The US position was dictated by domestic politics. Before the war, the following was believed, almost universally in the US -
- WWI was a stupid, futile European quarrel - It was the kind of thing that many had left Europe to avoid. - That America had just about managed to avoid disaster by being late to join in - That thousands had still died. - The cause of joining in was that, because of the U.K. dominance of the oceans, American manufacturers had sold to the Allies. Because they took Pounds and Francs, the American financial system became dependent on Allied victory. “War is a racket” - That the US had made things worse in Europe, by turning it into an Allied victory. Rather than a stalemate.
Which is why laws were passed massively restricting the munitions trade and taking other than dollars or gold as payment.
Was there not also the small matter of debts not being repaid to the USA after WW1?
WWI debt was paid by the U.K. - not sure about all the others.
The U.K. proposed a debt write off among the Allied powers - the UK had lent a lot to others.
As I have it, we stopped paying at least one type WW1 debt to the USA in 1934:
In 1934, the British government defaulted on these loans, leaving unpaid debts exceeding $4 billion. The UK decided to cease repayment 18 months after France had defaulted on its war debts, making one full and two token repayments prior to Congressional approval of the Johnson Act, which prohibited further partial contributions. https://ehs.org.uk/the-uks-unpaid-war-debts-to-the-united-states-1917-1980/
Interesting header Sean which has seamlessly moved into assisted dying. I wouldn't be insulted though I think it's more the weather.
I came across this which meant nothing to me but it's had 11 million views and only lasts 30 seconds. Anyone know who Mark Meadows is and can he really bring Trump down next March?
A most engaging read for a Sunday morning, so thank you Sean. And I had no idea where it was going to end.
The biggest concern for the Ukrainians seems to be manpower shortages on the frontline and the backlash to conscription efforts. The Russians and Americans might believe that at some point they will inevitably break the back of the Ukrainian army even though there is little to crow about on the frontline.
It's an interesting take into the possible psychology of people like Trump and Vance that I hadn't personally considered. I've always just assumed that Trump is enamoured with Putin, admires a system where leaders are unaccountable and can easily enrich themselves. Maybe there is something more primitive at work?
Thanks. Manpower is the big weakness for Ukraine, but a growing problem for Russia. Russian losses are now running well ahead of recruitment, and all the easy sources of manpower have run dry.
Putin could start conscripting young men in the Moscow - St. Petersburg belt, but he might face widespread revolt.
Interesting header Sean which has seamlessly moved into assisted dying. I wouldn't be insulted though I think it's more the weather.
I came across this which meant nothing to me but it's had 11 million views and only lasts 30 seconds. Anyone know who Mark Meadows is and can he really bring Trump down next March?
Mark Meadows is a former Trump Chief of Staff who was convicted of trying to overthrow a part of the 2020 election. Trump pardoned him. Presumably they have fallen out since.
Must confess I am confused. I thought that the SC had ruled he didn't need to bother with this kind of stuff whilst he was President. Is he really going to have a trial? For what?
A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.
It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.
All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
Yes, it is very difficult to win a war of occupation without genocide. That tends not to be possible in the modern world, even when attempted by Russia, China, Indonesia or Israel.
I recently had a tour of Sarajevo. The guide had served in ARBiH during the Bosnian war. "We knew that if the Serbs took Sarajevo they would commit genocide" he said. "We fought to the death"
I visited Sarajevo over twenty years ago, it was one of the most memorable places I've ever been. A beautiful city but with such a terrible recent past. I was teaching a course and in the coffee breaks people were surprisingly open about everything, there were people from all three communities there and it became clear that some people had relatives who had basically been murdered by the relatives of other people on the course. The pain was barely below the surface. The stories about sniper killings of children were particularly unbearable. People are capable of such depravity when they are willing to dehumanise the other side. When I hear some of the rhetoric around minorities and migrants in this country it is obvious it could happen here.
The Serbian variety of nationalism is among the most toxic of varieties. A nasty mix of triumphalism, self-pity, and glorification of treachery and atrocity.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Note that Sparta is also a very popular meme with the US right; see for example their veneration/meme-ification of movies like '300'.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
They’ve moved on from criticising his background, to now criticising his marriage.
The Dem operatives have no idea how badly they come across to everyone outside their very small, always-online, clique. It’s a large part of why Trump and Vance won, but they continue to double-down on the personal rather than the political.
Attack the political impacts of this suggested deal, say that it is unpopular with many allies in Europe and that it places at risk orders for American military equipment, rather than impugning the character of the VP.
One should attack both. Vance is a rancid bag of resentments.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.
The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.
Though the mithering in the west is a step back from that.
We're mostly not being asked to throw ourselves onto the battlefield, just to stump up the cash to produce the machines for the Ukrainians to use.
We've been reluctant to do that for a while. Alan Clark's Diaries note how his Defence Review was the only way John Major was going to be able to afford tax cuts.
One of the (many) things that disgusts me about pro-Russia types, is the argument that Western people are being required to make big sacrifices. All we’re being asked to do is empty our pockets of loose change.
Loose change and kit past its sell-by date.
Whenever I've met pro-Russia types I've wondered if they've ever met a Russian.
Because I've met a fair number of the years and there is only about 2 who had any redeeming qualities...
My neighbours are Russian. They are lovely. Really nice. They do however have a wicked dry sense of humour which gets some getting used to. We have never discussed politics. They were here way before the Ukrainian conflict.
I found Max Boot's Invisible Armies, a very interesting read. It considers why some gueriilla movements succeed and others fail (guerillas usually lose, in fact).
"Hearts and Minds" are very important. If people have genuine grievances, redressing them is not a sign of weakness, but rather, it's how you peel off moderates from hardliners. Brutality is also important, but it needs to be well-directed. Indiscriminate murder usually backfires. A shoot to kill policy, OTOH, can be very effective. Boots on the ground are essential, for local supporters have to be reassured they will get protection. Massive search and destroy missions are worse than useless.
I'd add another. Nationalism is a far more potent ideology than either communism or jihadism. It's why the latter will often try to present themselves as the former. Separating off the local nationalists from the others (as the British did in Malaya), almost always ensures victory.
Yes, we won in Malaya because we'd already promised them independence.
Had we been fighting to maintain British rule and the privileges of the planters, it'd have been a far harder and longer struggle.
Yes, we wanted a friendly, non-communist government, and to protect our commercial interests. We put a lot of effort in defending Malaysia, well past independence.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Note that Sparta is also a very popular meme with the US right; see for example their veneration/meme-ification of movies like '300'.
They like compulsory homosexuality?
They gloss over that part.
Then again, Russian state media people have claimed that rape in the Russian army is about discipline and isn’t at all gay.
A perhaps contrary example to those quoted by Sean F's thought-provoking piece is that provided by the Mongols who swept across Eurasia as far as the gates of Vienna until caused to withdraw because of the need of their 'top brass' to go home to deal with the effect of the death of (IIRC) Genghis Khan.
The Mongols also struggled against European fortress belts. Fortification was probably the one aspect of warfare where Europeans excelled over China or the Muslim world.
I think one clear counter-example to the "falling for the totalitarian" tendency (which imo we currently see amongst Trump fans) is that the UK was far more effective at total societal mobilisation than Germany in WW2. Hitler and co treated women as delicate blossoms for a very long time.
Autocracies suffer from four big problems:
1. People won’t relay bad news upwards. Being free to report bad news is vital in warfare.
2. They get high on their own supply. If they’re losing to people they believe racially inferior, or who employ women, they don’t rethink their ideas. They just pretend it’s not happening.
3. Corruption.
4. Loyalty to the regime is prioritised over competence, among military leaders.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
One thing that frustrates me is the frame for the war that the BBC adopts. PM on Friday essentially focused on the frame that because Ukraine is gradually ceding ground it is inevitable that it will lose, whilst not at all highlighting the extreme cost to Russia of these gradual advances, the broken army, the hundreds of thousands of dead, the sanctions and the increasing vulnerability of Russia to drone and missile attack. The evident panic underlying these secret talks between Trump, Witkoff, Dmitriev is Putin’s panic. Essentially because Putin knows he can’t meaningfully win the current operation and it is beginning to be understood at home. So he’s called in the useful idiots to help him steamroller the opposition.
Witkoff is not an honest broker. Trump is an idiot. A fair chunk of the Republican strength in senate and house will not go with this Russian proposal. It goes completely against FO/No. 10 instincts but Britain must also stand with Europe, Trump has to understand this is a threat to all of Europe, not just Ukraine.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
I'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
Vance almost certainly sees Putin as the defender of white, Christian civilisation.
All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.
What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting. Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.
It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.
We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia. And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.
Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies. And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.
King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619
And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:
This is blatantly false. *
As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236
*It clearly isn't blatantly false.
It is very hard to see how all three of Trump, Witkoff and Rubio survive this.
Witkoff is clearly at least one of insane, traitorous or corrupt.
Trump is clearly more clueless than usual (and that is saying something).
Rubio is obviously lying in all directions which suggests he's very angry but also very scared about something (probably Trump's wrath).
Trump is safe. Witkoff is Trump's creature, even if his actions would make Nathan Gilchrist blink. So he's safe.
Any market on Rubio to be gone by year's end?
I wouldn't put money in Rubio being sacked. There's clearly a factional battle going on, but Trump instinctively tries to maintain that dynamic, rather than settle it one way or the other. It's not as though he cares about actual policy issues.
If anything, it's more likely that Trump is the first to go - but only if he deteriorates sufficiently to make the 25th inevitable. Otherwise I would guess the chaos continues.
If Trump were to go, and Vance succeed, then we'd be really screwed - and Rubio's fate a minor consideration.
Trump is already backtracking, saying the deal presented is not a final one. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants adulation. Those matter even more than his attraction to “strong man” leaders like Putin.
A still greater danger is what might happen if Vance takes over as president. If he were in post now, the US would not be backing down on this appalling plan. Quite the opposite.
One of the many idiocies the Dems indulged in last year was not to emphasise Vance's beliefs but to go down the route of mocking someone from a deprived background.
I'd agree with you there. Though pinning down Vance's beliefs is hardly straightforward.
His irrational animus towards Ukraine is pretty consistent, of course.
It may be partly personal with Zelensky being popular and Vance being disliked.
Though I did read something interesting, linked by someone here, which suggested right wing US ideology is moving away from evangelic zionism to reactionary Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Vance would personally represent that change. Which might lead to a pro-Russia mentality with 'Moscow is the third Rome' underpinnings.
Vance almost certainly sees Putin as the defender of white, Christian civilisation.
It’s a stretch to see much of Russia as ‘civilisation’!
A most engaging read for a Sunday morning, so thank you Sean. And I had no idea where it was going to end.
The biggest concern for the Ukrainians seems to be manpower shortages on the frontline and the backlash to conscription efforts. The Russians and Americans might believe that at some point they will inevitably break the back of the Ukrainian army even though there is little to crow about on the frontline.
It's an interesting take into the possible psychology of people like Trump and Vance that I hadn't personally considered. I've always just assumed that Trump is enamoured with Putin, admires a system where leaders are unaccountable and can easily enrich themselves. Maybe there is something more primitive at work?
Note the comments of one of the more noted “realists” here - who would enjoy telling us about how the Russians couldn’t be defeated/stopped because they would transgress all the rules.
To a certain kind of person, that kind transgression is a symbol of the “Alpha Male”
But the reality is almost the opposite. I was watching clips yesterday of men with diabetes and drink problems who had "volunteered" to fight for mother Russia. All of them claimed they were tricked into signing up when they were drunk. All of them were chronically unfit. And they were being sent to the front line with absolutely minimal training or equipment to become fodder. It is tragic what these monsters have done to their own country, let alone Ukraine. @Sean_F makes that point well.
Yes, indeed.
The idea that being War Crimey actually works is non existent.
Recall the same person snearing at those pointing out that Russian military trucks were using cheap Chinese copies of proper off road tires. Which resulted in the trucks failing…
What matters in modern war is a willingness to fight - yes - but a kind of technical, thinking steadfastness.
Interestingly, H G Wells presaged this in his short story “The Land Ironclads”. On the surface, it is the story of the first tanks, as imagined by Wells. As usual with his works, the social message is the a critical part of the story.
In the Land Ironclads, the opponents are -
“ … nice healthy hunters and stockmen and so on, rowdy-dowdy cowpunchers and xxxxx-whackers”
Vs
“…crowd of devitalised townsmen, and that's the truth of the matter' They're clerks, they're factory hands, they're students, they're civilised men”
The latter group introduce the Land Ironclads and annihilate the enemy.
I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.
But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Note that Sparta is also a very popular meme with the US right; see for example their veneration/meme-ification of movies like '300'.
They like compulsory homosexuality?
They gloss over that part.
Lip gloss over? Goes with the eyeliner in one case.
One thing that frustrates me is the frame for the war that the BBC adopts. PM on Friday essentially focused on the frame that because Ukraine is gradually ceding ground it is inevitable that it will lose, whilst not at all highlighting the extreme cost to Russia of these gradual advances, the broken army, the hundreds of thousands of dead, the sanctions and the increasing vulnerability of Russia to drone and missile attack. The evident panic underlying these secret talks between Trump, Witkoff, Dmitriev is Putin’s panic. Essentially because Putin knows he can’t meaningfully win the current operation and it is beginning to be understood at home. So he’s called in the useful idiots to help him steamroller the opposition.
Witkoff is not an honest broker. Trump is an idiot. A fair chunk of the Republican strength in senate and house will not go with this Russian proposal. It goes completely against FO/No. 10 instincts but Britain must also stand with Europe, Trump has to understand this is a threat to all of Europe, not just Ukraine.
If advancing was enough to win wars then Moscow would be French.
One thing that frustrates me is the frame for the war that the BBC adopts. PM on Friday essentially focused on the frame that because Ukraine is gradually ceding ground it is inevitable that it will lose, whilst not at all highlighting the extreme cost to Russia of these gradual advances, the broken army, the hundreds of thousands of dead, the sanctions and the increasing vulnerability of Russia to drone and missile attack. The evident panic underlying these secret talks between Trump, Witkoff, Dmitriev is Putin’s panic. Essentially because Putin knows he can’t meaningfully win the current operation and it is beginning to be understood at home. So he’s called in the useful idiots to help him steamroller the opposition.
Witkoff is not an honest broker. Trump is an idiot. A fair chunk of the Republican strength in senate and house will not go with this Russian proposal. It goes completely against FO/No. 10 instincts but Britain must also stand with Europe, Trump has to understand this is a threat to all of Europe, not just Ukraine.
Most people find it hard to understand the concept of defence in depth. Suffice to say that a side that is taking 500 casualties, in order to gain a square kilometre of field, is not winning in any meaningful sense.
I would recommend the Institute for the Study of War’s blog, on the war, which is updated daily.
Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.
Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:
“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”
By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.
The "Spartan ethos" is heavily mythologised. In reality their brutal fascistic warrir city was no more or less successful than other city-states in the Ancient world. That stand at Thermopylae goes a long way.
The reality is that civilians can become excellent soldiers when motivated. Cromwell was a provincial farmer and MP until taking up arms in his forties for example.
It takes a lot of provocation to get a peaceful democracy to fight but it is very effective when that threshold is passed.
Sparta has been hugely overrated. I would place it in the category of “sick societies.”
Note that Sparta is also a very popular meme with the US right; see for example their veneration/meme-ification of movies like '300'.
They like compulsory homosexuality?
They gloss over that part.
Lip gloss over? Goes with the eyeliner in one case.
There is something quite homoerotic about fascism.
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
Yep - the world has 2 superpowers now - the USA and China. We can't ignore China and if the USA is untrustworthy (as it's been all year) committing to what the USA wants is pointless because it's desires will change next week..
Interesting header Sean which has seamlessly moved into assisted dying. I wouldn't be insulted though I think it's more the weather.
I came across this which meant nothing to me but it's had 11 million views and only lasts 30 seconds. Anyone know who Mark Meadows is and can he really bring Trump down next March?
Mark Meadows is a former Trump Chief of Staff who was convicted of trying to overthrow a part of the 2020 election. Trump pardoned him. Presumably they have fallen out since.
Must confess I am confused. I thought that the SC had ruled he didn't need to bother with this kind of stuff whilst he was President. Is he really going to have a trial? For what?
I think the reference to March is a State prosecution of Mark Meadows where a Presidential pardon doesn't wash but makes defending yourself difficult as you've admitted to the crime...
A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.
It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.
All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
Yes, it is very difficult to win a war of occupation without genocide. That tends not to be possible in the modern world, even when attempted by Russia, China, Indonesia or Israel.
I recently had a tour of Sarajevo. The guide had served in ARBiH during the Bosnian war. "We knew that if the Serbs took Sarajevo they would commit genocide" he said. "We fought to the death"
I visited Sarajevo over twenty years ago, it was one of the most memorable places I've ever been. A beautiful city but with such a terrible recent past. I was teaching a course and in the coffee breaks people were surprisingly open about everything, there were people from all three communities there and it became clear that some people had relatives who had basically been murdered by the relatives of other people on the course. The pain was barely below the surface. The stories about sniper killings of children were particularly unbearable. People are capable of such depravity when they are willing to dehumanise the other side. When I hear some of the rhetoric around minorities and migrants in this country it is obvious it could happen here.
The Serbian variety of nationalism is among the most toxic of varieties. A nasty mix of triumphalism, self-pity, and glorification of treachery and atrocity.
But they would argue that they are the heroes who stayed Christian, while the cowardly Kosovans meekly turned their coats and became Muslim.
MICHAEL I saw an interesting thing today. A man was being arrested by the Military Police; probably an urban guerrilla. Rather than be taken alive, he exploded a grenade hidden in his jacket, taking the command vehicle with him.
The various men look up as Michael eats his cake, wondering what the point of it is.
MICHAEL It occurred to me: the police are paid to fight, and the Rebels are not.
SAM ROTH So?
MICHAEL So, that occurred to me.
SEAN FEAR If you are trying to infer that the rebels could win because of their superior desire Michael, I direct you to a thread I wrote on Political Betting about the Fremen Mirage
A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.
It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.
All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
Yes, it is very difficult to win a war of occupation without genocide. That tends not to be possible in the modern world, even when attempted by Russia, China, Indonesia or Israel.
I recently had a tour of Sarajevo. The guide had served in ARBiH during the Bosnian war. "We knew that if the Serbs took Sarajevo they would commit genocide" he said. "We fought to the death"
I visited Sarajevo over twenty years ago, it was one of the most memorable places I've ever been. A beautiful city but with such a terrible recent past. I was teaching a course and in the coffee breaks people were surprisingly open about everything, there were people from all three communities there and it became clear that some people had relatives who had basically been murdered by the relatives of other people on the course. The pain was barely below the surface. The stories about sniper killings of children were particularly unbearable. People are capable of such depravity when they are willing to dehumanise the other side. When I hear some of the rhetoric around minorities and migrants in this country it is obvious it could happen here.
The Serbian variety of nationalism is among the most toxic of varieties. A nasty mix of triumphalism, self-pity, and glorification of treachery and atrocity.
But they would argue that they are the heroes who stayed Christian, while the cowardly Kosovans meekly turned their coats and became Muslim.
Given that the Ottomans, for all their cruelty, were generally tolerant of Christianity, that was not a major sacrifice. Of course, they also gloss over centuries of service in the Ottoman army.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.
More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.
Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.
I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.
The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.
The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job
Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.
Nonsense, those opposed to the principle about it are the ones objecting and proposing amendments but they'll still object even if the amendments were accepted. Its a wrecking tactic.
The bill should be much more liberalised, like in Canada, but this is better than nothing.
That's what worries people, that the proposal is not the end point. Except those with very strong religious conviction, a good many support the ability to end the suffering of people as they reach the end of their lives. But that is not the same as ending their lives early.
Let people with free will choose.
I would rather die with dignity on my own terms than live in agony. There is no sanctity to life.
If you do not share that PoV you can make your own choice. Don't forbid others from making their own.
I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.
But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.
After any peace Putin’s Russia will of course get itself geared up for the next war. But I suspect that might not be another invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has given Russia far more than it bargained for, and has strategically weakened it. Much more likely it goes after a weaker more promising target next. It does after all have a long wish-list of conquests to work through.
- The full annexation of Belarus, through behind the scenes coercion of Luka - Reasserting control over Moldova, most likely by hybrid means given the geographical difficulty of invasion if they don’t control Odessa and the whole Black Sea coast - Invasion of whichever Baltic state they consider the weakest, starting with hybrid action and testing NATO resolve - Getting that land corridor to Kaliningrad - Reacting to any anti-Russian developments in the theatre, like the Georgians kicking out Ivanishvili
I’d expect the more challenging targets like Finland, Poland and Ukraine 2.0 would be left for an indeterminate time in the future when Russia is able to strengthen itself with the resources and manpower it’s accumulated through other conquests.
A somewhat homophobic picture was painted of some of these ancient societies which fell, indeed ancient Rome outlasted the Goths in legacy via Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. For all its manly virtues and brutal treatment of its young, the 300 Spartans were still beaten by the Persians despite heroic resistance and it was Alexander the Great who really defeated Persia.
It is often the case that tougher societies can defeat invaders and will outlast richer invaders with less desire for casualties, as seen by numerous invaders of Afghanistan or in Vietnam. However that also provides encouragement to Ukraine who are clearly willing to keep fighting and endure hardship to remove the Russian invader. Putin ultimately won't last for ever and Russians will eventually tire of their young men dying in a foreign land and Trump will likely be replaced by a Democrat President by the end of the decade willing to give Ukraine the arms and funds and intelligence it needs to finally force the Russians out
The Ancient World was not, as sometimes imagined, a paradise for gay men.
All good points. People will fight far more ferociously in defence of their home turf, than in a foreign land, where they are dying for the greater glory of the dictators.
Yes, it is very difficult to win a war of occupation without genocide. That tends not to be possible in the modern world, even when attempted by Russia, China, Indonesia or Israel.
I recently had a tour of Sarajevo. The guide had served in ARBiH during the Bosnian war. "We knew that if the Serbs took Sarajevo they would commit genocide" he said. "We fought to the death"
I visited Sarajevo over twenty years ago, it was one of the most memorable places I've ever been. A beautiful city but with such a terrible recent past. I was teaching a course and in the coffee breaks people were surprisingly open about everything, there were people from all three communities there and it became clear that some people had relatives who had basically been murdered by the relatives of other people on the course. The pain was barely below the surface. The stories about sniper killings of children were particularly unbearable. People are capable of such depravity when they are willing to dehumanise the other side. When I hear some of the rhetoric around minorities and migrants in this country it is obvious it could happen here.
The Serbian variety of nationalism is among the most toxic of varieties. A nasty mix of triumphalism, self-pity, and glorification of treachery and atrocity.
But they would argue that they are the heroes who stayed Christian, while the cowardly Kosovans meekly turned their coats and became Muslim.
I know several very nice Serbs, with non-problematic ideology. Yes some countries do develop toxic political cultures, but their people remain just that, people.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Also a massive capital gain on the house. Not exactly tactful to wave it around in the current climate. And a logical disconnect, not to mention a rather surprising lack of awareness of finance and IHT.
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Also a massive capital gain on the house. Not exactly tactful to wave it around in the current climate. And a logical disconnect, not to mention a rather surprising lack of awareness of finance and IHT.
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
“To their horror”? I thought inheritance tax was well known?
In any case, if they want to keep the property, surely they can take out a small mortgage to pay off the tax bill.
Interesting header Sean which has seamlessly moved into assisted dying. I wouldn't be insulted though I think it's more the weather.
I came across this which meant nothing to me but it's had 11 million views and only lasts 30 seconds. Anyone know who Mark Meadows is and can he really bring Trump down next March?
Mark Meadows as Trump's chief of staff from March 31st 2020 to January 20th 2021 - so he was alongside Trump through out that period.
I'm not sure how it plays into 2025 politics and legal actions, but Mark Meadows was a defendant in earlier legal actions around the 2020 election manipulation. He was charged with other by Fani Willis in 2023 in the big Georgia State prosecution, and also in others, and made a plea deal to cooperate.
As part of that deal there would possibly be future cooperation included, which may be what is being invoked now.
I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.
But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.
Ceasefire on current lines, no restrictions on Ukraine military or alliances, and continued sanctions on Russia until they fully withdraw would seem the basis of a fair deal.
I'm sure Ukraine would throw in a few billion quid mining contract for Trump personally if it'd help win his approval.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Also a massive capital gain on the house. Not exactly tactful to wave it around in the current climate. And a logical disconnect, not to mention a rather surprising lack of awareness of finance and IHT.
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
“To their horror”? I thought inheritance tax was well known?
In any case, if they want to keep the property, surely they can take out a small mortgage to pay off the tax bill.
House is 1.2m alone, so total estate must be something approaching 1.4m if none of the allowance used on the first spouse's death (40% x 400K =160K). So tax rate more like 9%.
Edit: it is a curious story. I did wonder if there was some confusion about the various allowances. But still, I hope someone advises the lady and her siblings on the merits of deeds of variation - and about their own wills.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Also a massive capital gain on the house. Not exactly tactful to wave it around in the current climate. And a logical disconnect, not to mention a rather surprising lack of awareness of finance and IHT.
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
Yes. A "poor little me" narrative on a top 4% estate, where she admits most of the gain was down to good fortune, unearned and untaxed, is pathetic.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Also a massive capital gain on the house. Not exactly tactful to wave it around in the current climate. And a logical disconnect, not to mention a rather surprising lack of awareness of finance and IHT.
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
Yes. A "poor little me" narrative on a top 4% estate, where she admits most of the gain was down to good fortune, unearned and untaxed, is pathetic.
TBF some of that gain would be compensated for by index linking. BoE online calculator says 360K or so, which is still 3 times plus - knock a bit off for improvements, but still ...
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Also a massive capital gain on the house. Not exactly tactful to wave it around in the current climate. And a logical disconnect, not to mention a rather surprising lack of awareness of finance and IHT.
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
“To their horror”? I thought inheritance tax was well known?
In any case, if they want to keep the property, surely they can take out a small mortgage to pay off the tax bill.
Many PBers are far more financially sophisticated than most. I can easily believe ignorance around the precise workings of IHT, and the need to pay it before probate is a new one on me, tbh. Look at how even Cabinet ministers have been caught out in relatively small financial dealings.
And if that link is to be believed with more people about to use trusts following pension changes, I'd expect more of the same. Remember that even if the deceased took financial advice, it does not follow their inheritors did.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
A most engaging read for a Sunday morning, so thank you Sean. And I had no idea where it was going to end.
The biggest concern for the Ukrainians seems to be manpower shortages on the frontline and the backlash to conscription efforts. The Russians and Americans might believe that at some point they will inevitably break the back of the Ukrainian army even though there is little to crow about on the frontline.
It's an interesting take into the possible psychology of people like Trump and Vance that I hadn't personally considered. I've always just assumed that Trump is enamoured with Putin, admires a system where leaders are unaccountable and can easily enrich themselves. Maybe there is something more primitive at work?
Thanks. Manpower is the big weakness for Ukraine, but a growing problem for Russia. Russian losses are now running well ahead of recruitment, and all the easy sources of manpower have run dry.
Putin could start conscripting young men in the Moscow - St. Petersburg belt, but he might face widespread revolt.
What are the young men posted to the front line - on either side - actually achieving, other than providing targets for drones?
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Also a massive capital gain on the house. Not exactly tactful to wave it around in the current climate. And a logical disconnect, not to mention a rather surprising lack of awareness of finance and IHT.
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
“To their horror”? I thought inheritance tax was well known?
In any case, if they want to keep the property, surely they can take out a small mortgage to pay off the tax bill.
Many PBers are far more financially sophisticated than most. I can easily believe ignorance around the precise workings of IHT, and the need to pay it before probate is a new one on me, tbh. Look at how even Cabinet ministers have been caught out in relatively small financial dealings.
And if that link is to be believed with more people about to use trusts following pension changes, I'd expect more of the same. Remember that even if the deceased took financial advice, it does not follow their inheritors did.
Mm. But I'd add that the need to pay IHT before probate is a long-standing thing - been going for decades. You don't get probate until you have estimated IHT and paid up (it can and will be adjusted later on whern the final figures are in). Friend of mine ran into it about 2000, or so. It used to be a serious problem before banks would let executors use estate funds for that purpose.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Putin ‘praised Nathan Gill’s recruitment of MEPs for interviews’
The Russian leader is said to have been impressed with the disgraced ex-Reform politician who was asked to persuade politicians to appear on a pro-Kremlin TV channel
President Putin is said to have been personally “impressed” by the ability of Nathan Gill, the disgraced former Reform UK politician, to persuade a string of British MEPs to appear on a pro-Kremlin television channel.
This praise was alluded to in WhatsApp exchanges between Gill and Oleg Voloshyn, an alleged Russian agent, who paid the former leader of Reform in Wales up to £40,000 in bribes.
Gill was jailed for more than ten years on Friday after admitting that he accepted the money to promote the Kremlin’s agenda in the European parliament.
Prosecutors alleged that Gill, 52, recruited at least seven other pro-Brexit MEPs to help him in his efforts. There is no suggestion, however, that any of them received payment or knew that Gill had taken bribes.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Had a local authority briefing a short while ago, about how all the social care services are quite over spent, and that to carry out what they legally have to do, they're chipping away other things. Some of them sound like they should have been chipped away anyway.
But a Green councillor was demanded a no cuts budget, this is a council thats probably about 15% overspent on its main budget, and would become insolvent if it cant turn that around in a couple of years.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Labour eat away at that and it will be curtains, even if it isnt already.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
Putin ‘praised Nathan Gill’s recruitment of MEPs for interviews’
The Russian leader is said to have been impressed with the disgraced ex-Reform politician who was asked to persuade politicians to appear on a pro-Kremlin TV channel
President Putin is said to have been personally “impressed” by the ability of Nathan Gill, the disgraced former Reform UK politician, to persuade a string of British MEPs to appear on a pro-Kremlin television channel.
This praise was alluded to in WhatsApp exchanges between Gill and Oleg Voloshyn, an alleged Russian agent, who paid the former leader of Reform in Wales up to £40,000 in bribes.
Gill was jailed for more than ten years on Friday after admitting that he accepted the money to promote the Kremlin’s agenda in the European parliament.
Prosecutors alleged that Gill, 52, recruited at least seven other pro-Brexit MEPs to help him in his efforts. There is no suggestion, however, that any of them received payment or knew that Gill had taken bribes.
I've been watching the uncanny similarity between Nathan Gill's assessment of Ukraine war blame and another UKIP MPs analysis, all told in speeches to the EU Parliament.
It's very fortunate the other MEP was wise enough not to take the Russian Rouble for his rather unusual but clearly heartfelt pro-Kremlin view. If he had, he might be in hot water.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
Free childcare is removed when either mum or dad reaches £100,000 a year. This means a family where both parents are just below that limit, with a joint income of £199,000 and change, get free childcare. That's a cliff-edge. Won't someone think of the piano teachers?
But luckily those who are caught can use salary sacrifice to come back under the limit and boost their private pensions at the same time. Win-win.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Not like you to leave out the Ulster Unionists. And how about the Greens, SNP, SF, etc etc. Edit: that would be genuinely interesting.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
There will be plenty of unmarried or divorced residents of those terraced or detached homes in Edinburgh too whose estate beneficiaries would have had to pay IHT pre 2015
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Borrowing? For capital investment? To gain a return on the investment? Also known as capitalism?
Naah, it’ll never catch on.
It's the bit in bold that's the issue.
Yeah I know, and it’s wrong for all the obvious reasons. But- and I think it’s important - we need to invest. We can’t cut our way to growth - haven’t we learnt that yet?
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
There will be plenty of unmarried or divorced residents of those terraced or detached homes in Edinburgh too who would have had to pay IHT pre 2015
So why aren't you campaigning to remedy this injustice? A friend of mine is a doting auntie to her nieces and nephews, but is disctiminated against by Mr Osborne's unfair tax.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Not like you to leave out the Ulster Unionists. And how about the Greens, SNP, SF, etc etc. Edit: that would be genuinely interesting.
Not in the poll figures breakdown, though all the above a tiny fraction of GB 2024 voters anyway from which the party samples were taken and broken down
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
There will be plenty of unmarried or divorced residents of those terraced or detached homes in Edinburgh too who would have had to pay IHT pre 2015
Ah - you've changed it. But lots of unmarried or divorced people don't have children.
In fact your ENTIRE argument about £1m allowance is only relevant to Tory and C of E approved nuclear families. It would be more convincing if it were more fairly handled.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
It does feel wrong but why? Why not ask why there should be VAT on Gregg's pasties when customers have already paid income tax on their wages? (Osborne himself favoured 5 Guys burgers iirc.) The IHT double tax complaint became a meme before there were memes.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Borrowing? For capital investment? To gain a return on the investment? Also known as capitalism?
Naah, it’ll never catch on.
It's never investment though, its borrowing to pay for wages.
If I pay the wages of a teacher and that teacher teaches many classes of pupils useful skills that mean they get better, more porductive jobs, then the wages of the teacher were an investment.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Not like you to leave out the Ulster Unionists. And how about the Greens, SNP, SF, etc etc. Edit: that would be genuinely interesting.
Not in the poll figures breakdown, though all the above a tiny fraction of UK 2024 voters anyway from which the party samples were taken
Fair enough - the statistics could still even out a bit anyway when lumping the smaller parties together.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
There will be plenty of unmarried or divorced residents of those terraced or detached homes in Edinburgh too who would have had to pay IHT pre 2015
So why aren't you campaigning to remedy this injustice? A friend of mine is a doting auntie to her nieces and nephews, but is disctiminated against by Mr Osborne's unfair tax.
The Residence Nil Rate Band applies to any estate and to step children and adopted and foster children not just married couples though only married couples can use the transferable allowance, even if it could be extended to aunts and nieces and nephews
I wonder how long it is before they start calling the church woke? Love your neighbour? Turn the other cheek? Welcome immigrants? What is this shit? etc
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Borrowing? For capital investment? To gain a return on the investment? Also known as capitalism?
Naah, it’ll never catch on.
It's never investment though, its borrowing to pay for wages.
If I pay the wages of a teacher and that teacher teaches many classes of pupils useful skills that mean they get better, more porductive jobs, then the wages of the teacher were an investment.
Alos Sure Start had a real impact on saving money on crime, social disruption, etc. etc. down the line. But it was chopped by Mr Osborne.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Not like you to leave out the Ulster Unionists. And how about the Greens, SNP, SF, etc etc. Edit: that would be genuinely interesting.
Not in the poll figures breakdown, though all the above a tiny fraction of UK 2024 voters anyway from which the party samples were taken
Fair enough - the statistics could still even out a bit anyway when lumping the smaller parties together.
I highly doubt it, UUP and DUP voters would be mostly against and Greens, SNP and SF voters for, so the left right divide remains
Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.
I wonder how long it is before they start calling the church woke? Love your neighbour? Turn the other cheek? Welcome immigrants? What is this shit? etc
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
This is what is always said but it is not really true. For the vast majority troubled by IHT their major asset is their house on which they will have a substantial gain from the time that they bought it. And they have paid no tax on that gain at all. Unless they have bought an annuity the next largest asset is likely to be pension funds. On which they have not only not paid tax but had tax relief. If they own a business then there will be unrealised (and untaxed) capital gains on heritable assets and goodwill. The taxed income people complain about is likely to be a relatively modest contributor to the estate because it is bloody difficult to have meaningful savings out of taxed income in this country, thus maintaining the financial dominance of our ruling class.
If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
There will be plenty of unmarried or divorced residents of those terraced or detached homes in Edinburgh too who would have had to pay IHT pre 2015
Ah - you've changed it. But lots of unmarried or divorced people don't have children.
In fact your ENTIRE argument about £1m allowance is only relevant to Tory and C of E approved nuclear families. It would be more convincing if it were more fairly handled.
Plenty of Labour voting married couples with children with million pound houses in Hampstead, Cambridge, Finchley, Kensington etc and LD voting married couples with children in LD held seats in Surrey.
Divorced people with step children can use the Residence Nil Rate Band too as can unmarried people with adopted children
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
It reminds me of that Guardian article in 2010/11 when George Osborne removed child benefit for high earners and one bloke wrote it was a savage cut that was going to deprive his daughter of piano lessons.
And she can thank Osborne it is not a £350,000 inheritance tax bill as it would have been before he brought in the Residence Nil Rate Band and Transferable Allowance in 2015
Mind, it's a nice potted example of how that very ruling benefits well off pensioners in the south-east. Can't imagine why, can you?
Also well off residents even in Scotland. In Edinburgh 'Terraced properties sold for an average of £400,847, with detached properties fetching £581,205.' So both would have been liable for inheritance tax too without the Osborne cut and Nil Rate Band
You're the last person in the world to forget about married couples and their families. So why are you suddenly amnesiac about the transferable allowance that you mention in your previous post but one? Bot your figures fall below the 2 x basic band.
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
There will be plenty of unmarried or divorced residents of those terraced or detached homes in Edinburgh too who would have had to pay IHT pre 2015
So why aren't you campaigning to remedy this injustice? A friend of mine is a doting auntie to her nieces and nephews, but is disctiminated against by Mr Osborne's unfair tax.
No she isn't, the Residence Nil Rate Band applies to any estate not just married couples though only married couples can use the transferable allowance
1. Not ust married couples use TNRB - civil partnerships too. (A minor one. But still. 2. RNRB is only applicable where there exist direct descendants (and their adoptive, etc. equivalents and spouses) AND where those inherit the house (allowing for cases where the house is sold to move into sheltered acc, care. etc.).
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
This is what is always said but it is not really true. For the vast majority troubled by IHT their major asset is their house on which they will have a substantial gain from the time that they bought it. And they have paid no tax on that gain at all. Unless they have bought an annuity the next largest asset is likely to be pension funds. On which they have not only not paid tax but had tax relief. If they own a business then there will be unrealised (and untaxed) capital gains on heritable assets and goodwill. The taxed income people complain about is likely to be a relatively modest contributor to the estate because it is bloody difficult to have meaningful savings out of taxed income in this country, thus maintaining the financial dominance of our ruling class.
If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.
Given when my Dad died me and my sister got a few grand and when my Mom goes we will get nowt I’m in full agreement.
Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:
The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.
Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.
Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.
Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.
This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?
Its the 'plonkers' that are making sure the bill isn't a bag of spanners, that starts off with vague intentions and letting the courts determine what should be done by lawmakers. Experience in Canada and parts of Europe show that those in charge of overseeing these things are not safe to be given the permission to fill in the gaps. What started out for those with a terminal illness and near death has been expanded to mental illness and I quote "grievous and irremediable" conditions. Which is wide open to interpretation it can be anything.
If we are going to have a law on something like this (which having parents with severe dementia who would have wished, if they had been able to make it clear at the time to have been put to sleep long before their current state) which i dont disagree with, but the detail is phenomenally important.
The House of Commons doesnt do detail properly.
It was a private members bill and the initial debate time was laughably short. Many MPs didn't even get a proper chance to speak.
And then it wouldnt have judicial oversight, and then it would etc. It was a strategic masterplan in how to mess up something that has broad support.
Because it was a matter of conscience, it had to be a Private Member's bill. It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
But the legislation has been massively revised, no?
Yes
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lowered the limit for most abortions from 28 to 24 weeks but also removed the previous "absolute" limits on late-term abortions.
Then in August 2022 there was a change to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to take abortion pills at home.
Legislation like this often changes with evolving culture and technology.
I'm talking about assisted dying (suicide).
I said It has been a similar process to David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act which had and has widespread support.
And you said But the legislation has been massively revised, no
So I thought we were talking about the 1967 Abortion Act.
But if you are talking about the Assisted Dying Bill, then yes - it has been massively revised for the better in the Commons during the 90 hours in Committee.
You don't think it has benefitted from any revisions from the Lords then?
Yes - the Lords have a role in improving it further. That's good governance.
What is not good is for a small minority of people who oppose the Bill trying to talk it out of time by tabling and talking to an enormous number of amendments. They are not trying to improve it. They are trying to kill it against the wishes of the Commons, the public and a clear majority in the Lords.
There’s not been a public debate on it. You cannot claim the bill has public support when the public is not informed about the details. You can only say the principle is looked on favourably.
Perhaps the more the details are known the less the support will be.
Such a key change as this needs a full public debate, IMV, not a private members bill.
In a May 2025 YouGov poll, 75% of Britons supported assisted dying in principle, and 73% supported the bill as it stood. Another poll in March 2024 by Opinium Research found 75% of respondents would support making assisted dying lawful.
The 75% support for legalizing assisted dying is consistent across various political parties, including Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat voters.
A poll of disabled people found that 79% would support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults.
There is a bit of party political divide on the issue, while 80% of Labour voters and 72% of LDs support the assisted dying bill as it stands only 71% of Conservative voters and 64% of Reform voters do. Even if majorities of all voters support assisted dying, at least for the terminally ill https://yougov.co.uk/health/articles/52413-support-for-assisted-dying-unmoved-by-the-debate
“while” 72% of LDs support the bill “only” 71% of Conservatives do….
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
Yes, fewer Conservative voters than LDs and 16% fewer Reform than Labour voters back the Assisted Dying Bill
It’s quite obvious that, far from being an objective ‘student of the polls’, you simply post whatever your own preconceived bias might be, based on your rather peculiar view of the world, and then scratch around for whatever polls you can find to create the illusion of objectivity. That the argument in your earlier post rests upon the statistically insignificant difference between 72% and 71% - probably just a single person in the underlying subsample - simply lifts the curtain on the intellectual hollowness and essentially fraudulent nature of your approach.
Put it another way then, only 577 Conservative and Reform voters backed the Assisted Dying Bill in the weighted sample, compared to 699 Labour and LD voters
Not like you to leave out the Ulster Unionists. And how about the Greens, SNP, SF, etc etc. Edit: that would be genuinely interesting.
Not in the poll figures breakdown, though all the above a tiny fraction of UK 2024 voters anyway from which the party samples were taken
Fair enough - the statistics could still even out a bit anyway when lumping the smaller parties together.
I highly doubt it, UUP and DUP voters would be mostly against and Greens, SNP and SF voters for, so the left right divide remains
SF? Really? really?
- and the percentage differences aren't that great anyway. So you do need to adjust for numbers asked.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
I wonder how long it is before they start calling the church woke? Love your neighbour? Turn the other cheek? Welcome immigrants? What is this shit? etc
I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.
I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.
To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.
But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.
Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.
The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.
In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.
So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.
Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.
But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.
After any peace Putin’s Russia will of course get itself geared up for the next war. But I suspect that might not be another invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has given Russia far more than it bargained for, and has strategically weakened it. Much more likely it goes after a weaker more promising target next. It does after all have a long wish-list of conquests to work through.
- The full annexation of Belarus, through behind the scenes coercion of Luka - Reasserting control over Moldova, most likely by hybrid means given the geographical difficulty of invasion if they don’t control Odessa and the whole Black Sea coast - Invasion of whichever Baltic state they consider the weakest, starting with hybrid action and testing NATO resolve - Getting that land corridor to Kaliningrad - Reacting to any anti-Russian developments in the theatre, like the Georgians kicking out Ivanishvili
I’d expect the more challenging targets like Finland, Poland and Ukraine 2.0 would be left for an indeterminate time in the future when Russia is able to strengthen itself with the resources and manpower it’s accumulated through other conquests.
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
Borrowing? For capital investment? To gain a return on the investment? Also known as capitalism?
Naah, it’ll never catch on.
It's never investment though, its borrowing to pay for wages.
If I pay the wages of a teacher and that teacher teaches many classes of pupils useful skills that mean they get better, more porductive jobs, then the wages of the teacher were an investment.
Alos Sure Start had a real impact on saving money on crime, social disruption, etc. etc. down the line. But it was chopped by Mr Osborne.
+1 - you only need to look at the boom in child Social care costs to show the benefits of providing support and training to parents while identifying issues early when they can be resolved cheaply.
Comments
In 1934, the British government defaulted on these loans, leaving unpaid debts exceeding $4 billion. The UK decided to cease repayment 18 months after France had defaulted on its war debts, making one full and two token repayments prior to Congressional approval of the Johnson Act, which prohibited further partial contributions.
https://ehs.org.uk/the-uks-unpaid-war-debts-to-the-united-states-1917-1980/
Putin could start conscripting young men in the Moscow - St. Petersburg belt, but he might face widespread revolt.
Must confess I am confused. I thought that the SC had ruled he didn't need to bother with this kind of stuff whilst he was President. Is he really going to have a trial? For what?
1. People won’t relay bad news upwards. Being free to report bad news is vital in warfare.
2. They get high on their own supply. If they’re losing to people they believe racially inferior, or who employ women, they don’t rethink their ideas. They just pretend it’s not happening.
3. Corruption.
4. Loyalty to the regime is prioritised over competence, among military leaders.
Both arrogant and ridiculous.
One thing that frustrates me is the frame for the war that the BBC adopts. PM on Friday essentially focused on the frame that because Ukraine is gradually ceding ground it is inevitable that it will lose, whilst not at all highlighting the extreme cost to Russia of these gradual advances, the broken army, the hundreds of thousands of dead, the sanctions and the increasing vulnerability of Russia to drone and missile attack. The evident panic underlying these secret talks between Trump, Witkoff, Dmitriev is Putin’s panic. Essentially because Putin knows he can’t meaningfully win the current operation and it is beginning to be understood at home. So he’s called in the useful idiots to help him steamroller the opposition.
Witkoff is not an honest broker. Trump is an idiot. A fair chunk of the Republican strength in senate and house will not go with this Russian proposal. It goes completely against FO/No. 10 instincts but Britain must also stand with Europe, Trump has to understand this is a threat to all of Europe, not just Ukraine.
Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn co-presenting again is like the oasis reunion for 2000s politics nerds
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1992520883903336512?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Hence Rhet Butler’s dismissal of “Southern gentlemen.”
But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/mum-died-148k-inheritance-tax-bill-robbery-4043112?utm_campaign=social_fb_posts&utm_medium=social&utm_social_handle_id=118077678252869&utm_social_post_id=589120167&utm_source=fb
Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..
Not sure if that would be better or worse.
I would recommend the Institute for the Study of War’s blog, on the war, which is updated daily.
Thanks for your kind remarks.
MICHAEL
I saw an interesting thing today.
A man was being arrested by the
Military Police; probably an urban
guerrilla. Rather than be taken
alive, he exploded a grenade hidden
in his jacket, taking the command
vehicle with him.
The various men look up as Michael eats his cake, wondering
what the point of it is.
MICHAEL
It occurred to me: the police are
paid to fight, and the Rebels are
not.
SAM ROTH
So?
MICHAEL
So, that occurred to me.
SEAN FEAR
If you are trying to infer that the rebels could win because of their superior desire Michael, I direct you to a thread I wrote on Political Betting about the Fremen Mirage
https://dailyscript.com/scripts/godfather2.html
I would rather die with dignity on my own terms than live in agony. There is no sanctity to life.
If you do not share that PoV you can make your own choice. Don't forbid others from making their own.
- The full annexation of Belarus, through behind the scenes coercion of Luka
- Reasserting control over Moldova, most likely by hybrid means given the geographical difficulty of invasion if they don’t control Odessa and the whole Black Sea coast
- Invasion of whichever Baltic state they consider the weakest, starting with hybrid action and testing NATO resolve
- Getting that land corridor to Kaliningrad
- Reacting to any anti-Russian developments in the theatre, like the Georgians kicking out Ivanishvili
I’d expect the more challenging targets like Finland, Poland and Ukraine 2.0 would be left for an indeterminate time in the future when Russia is able to strengthen itself with the resources and manpower it’s accumulated through other conquests.
“I’m talking about borrowing for… investment”
Green leader Zack Polanski defends his plans to increase borrowing and says the “trust of the public” is more important than markets when it comes to managing the UK's debt and spending
https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1992549635236196489
'Now, the four-bedroom property, which has a third of an acre of land and a swimming pool, is valued at £1.2m.
The house, along with Audrey’s other assets, went to Jill and her two brothers – but to their horror, they were landed with a £148,000 inheritance tax bill.
“It is wicked,” said Jill, who is widowed and a mother of three and a grandmother of four.
She said: “Why shouldn’t my mum and dad be able to pass on the money they worked so hard for and made over their lifetime to us? [...]"'
(Interested to see that the writer seems to be a specialist writer for the newspaper (whatever) on 'human interest' financial stories. I sometimes wonder what the parents - had they been still there - would think of this sort of open access, not to mention other relatives. Seems to be a particularly British middle class version of the tell all about family disputes chat shows of Usonian television.)
In any case, if they want to keep the property, surely they can take out a small mortgage to pay off the tax bill.
As part of that deal there would possibly be future cooperation included, which may be what is being invoked now.
I'm sure Ukraine would throw in a few billion quid mining contract for Trump personally if it'd help win his approval.
House is 1.2m alone, so total estate must be something approaching 1.4m if none of the allowance used on the first spouse's death (40% x 400K =160K). So tax rate more like 9%.
Edit: it is a curious story. I did wonder if there was some confusion about the various allowances. But still, I hope someone advises the lady and her siblings on the merits of deeds of variation - and about their own wills.
And if that link is to be believed with more people about to use trusts following pension changes, I'd expect more of the same. Remember that even if the deceased took financial advice, it does not follow their inheritors did.
Do you actually read the stuff you post on here before clicking “post”?
GOP lawmaker demands $300B in defense dues from Canada
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/22/gop-lawmaker-demands-300b-in-defense-dues-from-canada-00666112
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5618124-trump-allies-justice-department-settlements/
The Russian leader is said to have been impressed with the disgraced ex-Reform politician who was asked to persuade politicians to appear on a pro-Kremlin TV channel
President Putin is said to have been personally “impressed” by the ability of Nathan Gill, the disgraced former Reform UK politician, to persuade a string of British MEPs to appear on a pro-Kremlin television channel.
This praise was alluded to in WhatsApp exchanges between Gill and Oleg Voloshyn, an alleged Russian agent, who paid the former leader of Reform in Wales up to £40,000 in bribes.
Gill was jailed for more than ten years on Friday after admitting that he accepted the money to promote the Kremlin’s agenda in the European parliament.
Prosecutors alleged that Gill, 52, recruited at least seven other pro-Brexit MEPs to help him in his efforts. There is no suggestion, however, that any of them received payment or knew that Gill had taken bribes.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/putin-praised-nathan-gills-recruitment-of-meps-for-interviews-wlvw5w90r
Naah, it’ll never catch on.
But a Green councillor was demanded a no cuts budget, this is a council thats probably about 15% overspent on its main budget, and would become insolvent if it cant turn that around in a couple of years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4p42kydx9o
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/edinburgh.html
It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.
R is for Reform.
R is for Russia.
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1992520011139936535
And the Transferable NRB was not introduced by Mr Osborne, but long before he was CoE. Finance Act 2008.
It's very fortunate the other MEP was wise enough not to take the Russian Rouble for his rather unusual but clearly heartfelt pro-Kremlin view. If he had, he might be in hot water.
But luckily those who are caught can use salary sacrifice to come back under the limit and boost their private pensions at the same time. Win-win.
That’s rule one of capitalism.
In fact your ENTIRE argument about £1m allowance is only relevant to Tory and C of E approved nuclear families. It would be more convincing if it were more fairly handled.
And it's that anti-empathy, everyone-for-themselves attitude that contributes to today's US foreign policy.
If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.
Divorced people with step children can use the Residence Nil Rate Band too as can unmarried people with adopted children
2. RNRB is only applicable where there exist direct descendants (and their adoptive, etc. equivalents and spouses) AND where those inherit the house (allowing for cases where the house is sold to move into sheltered acc, care. etc.).
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inheritance-tax-residence-nil-rate-band#direct-decs
No provision is made for collaterals even as close as siblings or nieces/nephews.
- and the percentage differences aren't that great anyway. So you do need to adjust for numbers asked.
So when does it want to fight Russia ?
Not if but when.