@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
They are already being taxed by having student loans. It wouldn't really be much different, except it would get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy of the current repayment system.
The current system is capped in that when the loan is paid off the repayments stop. A graduate tax would not.
Personally, I would privatise the whole University sector. What business of government is it?
So? That surely means that those with the biggest salaries contribute the most, and will reduce the burden on those lower down the income scale.
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Dismissing based on a gut feeling is what lunatic conspiracy theorists do. Sure they turn out to be right sometimes, by sheer luck, but it is coincidental.
Besides, I don't think the kind of logic Roger is trying to apply works with Chemical weapons. They are terror weapons designed to have an effect far beyond their basic physical action and a scope that goes far beyond just the immediate tactical geographic range. To assume Assad is using them for logical tactical or strategic reasons is not necessarily going to get you any answers.
Yes. Quite why Assad has used them is a very intriguing question given that the war seems to have turned in his favour - so we can rule out their use as an act of desperation as it was the first time.
The most likely explanation, to me, is that he is sending an open letter about the post-war settlement to both the population and the wider world, and that it is a message counter-signed by Putin.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
If we had a graduate tax and no tuition fees, would that mean we couldn't charge anyone from the EU fees either (and at the time no one thought we would be leaving)?
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
They are already being taxed by having student loans. It wouldn't really be much different, except it would get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy of the current repayment system.
The current system is capped in that when the loan is paid off the repayments stop. A graduate tax would not.
Personally, I would privatise the whole University sector. What business of government is it?
So? That surely means that those with the biggest salaries contribute the most, and will reduce the burden on those lower down the income scale.
The current system works out fine if you're on a very low salary, or if you're able to work in a firm that can arb tiny central bank rates against what the consumer will pay but the "middle" pays through the nose long term.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Student loans repayment is basically a tax, so it wouldn't have been a new tax. They could have left the basic rate untouched, and just added an extra 1% (e.g.) onto the higher rate for graduates.
Or give graduates a lower threshold a bit like company car drivers.
would also mean people of different ages having different tax codes and different rates of tax.
i wouldn't be happy as someone who did pay student fees to have to pay twice (once at the start when I started uni, and now via taxation). Unless I'd get a refund (with interest).
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
If we had a graduate tax and no tuition fees, would that mean we couldn't charge anyone from the EU fees either (and at the time no one thought we would be leaving)?
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Student loans repayment is basically a tax, so it wouldn't have been a new tax. They could have left the basic rate untouched, and just added an extra 1% (e.g.) onto the higher rate for graduates.
Or give graduates a lower threshold a bit like company car drivers.
would also mean people of different ages having different tax codes and different rates of tax.
i wouldn't be happy as someone who did pay student fees to have to pay twice (once at the start when I started uni, and now via taxation). Unless I'd get a refund (with interest).
It wouldn't be fair to retroactively charge everyone who graduated. Just those who graduate after the policy comes into force.
I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Boris presumably because he is the loosest of loose cannons and will do something stupid at some stage.
Hammond after the budget.
Fox because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I agree the first two are poor value. Losing such a senior figure is something serious. If it happens, it will either need careful planning or bring down the government. Hammond appears doubly safe because it's hard to see anyone else who could command the same respect as Chancellor and no. 2 in the government at present.
If anyone wants value, Justine Greening might just be vulnerable. There are some very nasty problems building up around the new GCSE and A-levels - too rushed, too difficult, inadequate training for teachers, insufficient examiners, exam board IT systems under pressure (and according to an email I have just had, being hacked by outsiders). As a result this summer could be extraordinarily chaotic and difficult. Moreover, vicious budget cuts and severe reductions in curriculum options, increases in class sizes and in some areas, even charges are about to come in.
None of those are her fault, but it could potentially destroy OFQUAL and if that goes it's hard to imagine there will be no knock-on effect at the DfE. In an ideal world both would be abolished along with OFSTED and the money spent on something useful. That won't happen of course but the civil servants who have royally goofed up may try to hide behind the minister.
DYOR but I think she's in a nasty spot. And May's not Cameron - she doesn't back her ministers the way he did.
How often do ministers resign because of ineptitude rather than scandal though? I'm trying to remember the last. Estelle Morris?
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Isn't the whole of motor racing incl. F1 designed to sell more road cars?
Yes, but McLaren haven't raced a car at the Indy for decades, and it's only in the last half a dozen years they've started selling road cars. They're a privateer team rather than a motor manufacturer.
The astonishment is that an F1 team is snubbing what is considered to be the Blue Riband F1 event by sending their star driver to America instead, facilities his own career choices rather than optimising the team's strategy in Monaco. Fair play to them for thinking well outside the box though, if they let Alonso out for the Indy this year (with the team that won last year) and Le Mans next year, he'll be only the second driver after Graham Hill to have won motorsport's 'triple crown'.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Student loans repayment is basically a tax, so it wouldn't have been a new tax. They could have left the basic rate untouched, and just added an extra 1% (e.g.) onto the higher rate for graduates.
Or give graduates a lower threshold a bit like company car drivers.
would also mean people of different ages having different tax codes and different rates of tax.
i wouldn't be happy as someone who did pay student fees to have to pay twice (once at the start when I started uni, and now via taxation). Unless I'd get a refund (with interest).
It wouldn't be fair to retroactively charge everyone who graduated. Just those who graduate after the policy comes into force.
Those who graduated should have an option to switch to the new code in return for a write off (I'm thinking of post 2012 loanees here). Some in particularly high paying jobs may not wish to.
I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Boris presumably because he is the loosest of loose cannons and will do something stupid at some stage.
Hammond after the budget.
Fox because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I agree the first two are poor value. Losing such a senior figure is something serious. If it happens, it will either need careful planning or bring down the government. Hammond appears doubly safe because it's hard to see anyone else who could command the same respect as Chancellor and no. 2 in the government at present.
If anyone wants value, Justine Greening might just be vulnerable. There are some very nasty problems building up around the new GCSE and A-levels - too rushed, too difficult, inadequate training for teachers, insufficient examiners, exam board IT systems under pressure (and according to an email I have just had, being hacked by outsiders). As a result this summer could be extraordinarily chaotic and difficult. Moreover, vicious budget cuts and severe reductions in curriculum options, increases in class sizes and in some areas, even charges are about to come in.
None of those are her fault, but it could potentially destroy OFQUAL and if that goes it's hard to imagine there will be no knock-on effect at the DfE. In an ideal world both would be abolished along with OFSTED and the money spent on something useful. That won't happen of course but the civil servants who have royally goofed up may try to hide behind the minister.
DYOR but I think she's in a nasty spot. And May's not Cameron - she doesn't back her ministers the way he did.
How often do ministers resign because of ineptitude rather than scandal though? I'm trying to remember the last. Estelle Morris?
It's very rare now. By farming out more and more of the business of government to executive agencies who can conveniently be blamed when things go wrong successive governments have whittled away the doctrine of ministerial responsibility to the point where it barely exists any more.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
They sound almost as bad as the SLC themselves, whose independent assessor told me quite seriously they are not bound by the criminal law - never mind that the real problem was that they had told me a lie about what they had actually done with my account (although what they said they had done did become a secondary issue as it would have been illegal).
I'm clearing my student loan this year anyway. It's cheaper than keeping it in savings and I've had enough of them.
I think that is what the interest rate is supposed to achieve. More people paying back the full whack and earlier because it becomes quite an expensive debt. Commercially this makes sense but the implications for the whole economy are extremely negative. It seriously undermines our housing market essentially excluding a significant part of the population from house ownership for a long time; it is a drain on consumption which remains the driving force of our economy and it gives a generation that were sold largely useless degrees a much higher tax rate than the rest of us.
I am genuinely concerned about the long term implications of this policy. Loading debt on the younger generation whilst remaining committed to the triple lock for the elder generation is appallingly unfair.
Problem is plenty of people will think it unfair, perhaps even a majority, but the first time someone suggests taking away the gray vote bribes, they'll suffer electoral consequences.
Which is why John McDonnell is arguing for increasing the 'triple lock' on pensions to 2025.
Politicians all know that old people vote, removing the TL now there's a bit of inflation is undoubtedly the right thing to do from the perspective of the public finances.
It does need careful political consideration though, as Brown's famous 75p increase showed - he would have been better off politically facing down a freeze than such a derisory raise in the state pension.
I suggested last week that Corbyn's "tax private schools to pay for free school meals" policy would end up being a net-unpopular bit of populism - it attacks Middle England's aspirations for their kids, while enraging a previously Labour-supporting group (teachers, who generally loathe universal free school meals).
What makes you think that? I'd be all for children having two proper meals a day, never mind one. Might make the hungry little sods pay attention when I am going through the finer points of Alexander II's judicial reforms.
Hm, interesting. My experience is in primary rather than secondary; maybe that's the difference, but I don't know a single primary teacher in favour of this.
In primary, many if not most schools just don't have the infra to resource this, as Clegg's policy already demonstrated; there are much more deserving areas for funding (the National Funding Formula is going to wreak havoc on large numbers of primaries); and it's not addressing a genuine problem that the staff encounter. Sure, it's a nice-to-have, but one that would create a whole lot of new issues if it's introduced inadequately (which it would be) and would distract attention from the bigger challenges.
Despite his losing his mind a bit since Trump won (he has never pretended to be non-partisan, though many of the topics he touches on are cross partisan to some degree, but since Trump he's clearly angry and bitter and not caring to hide it, which is his right on his show), I really enjoy John Oliver and his pieces, but I have to admit I was surprised that he did not see that example of a seat as a problem, that in essence its ok to join together to completely separate areas in one seat because, at the moment, they are both Latino communities. For one presumably it is only they are predominantly Latino, and maybe the minority position is different in each, and for another, John Oliver and others of the Daily Show alumni have frequently made the point that not all latinos have the same concerns, that Latino is not a uniform bloc, that Cuban heritage, Mexican etc etc, are not uniform, and should not be treated the same, and he didn't mention, IIRC, whether these two Latino communities were themselves comprised of the same type of Latino.
It seemed a clear case of party political Gerrymandering to me since the parties believe, not without some justification (if not as much as they believed) that certain communities vote more heavily for one party over another, so you round up specific communities to shore up your vote, rather than the governance being inherently better. Sure they say its about community cohesion, but they are in different areas, they aren't one community, they just say they are because they're blocs of voters are there. Cui bono?
In an interesting piece which touched on people claiming boundaries were for one reason but actually for another, I was not convinced by his argument that those ones were ok for that reason.
Oliver is at his best when examining non party political issues.
You have a point there, his justification was that all the seats were already democrat so there was no partisan advantage to be gained, but if surrounding seats were republican perhaps there was some clever drawing of boundaries involved. The boundaries were unlikely to have been drawn solely for the benefit of community cohesion.
I think the whole idea of community cohesion seats is wrong, but chalked it up to America's obsession with race politics. Of course no democrat is going to actively draw boundaries unfavourable to them, so in a sense gerrymandering is happening in practice if not in theory. I don't think it can be classified as party political gerrymandering officially though - unlike the republican example he showed where they explicitly said it was about partisan advantage, because that's legal.
Problem is plenty of people will think it unfair, perhaps even a majority, but the first time Which is why John McDonnell is arguing for increasing the 'triple lock' on pensions to 2025.
Politicians all know that old people vote, removing the TL now there's a bit of inflation is undoubtedly the right thing to do from the perspective of the public finances.
This won't win Labour any voters over 65, it'll just lose them younger voters.
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Isn't the whole of motor racing incl. F1 designed to sell more road cars?
Yes, and presumably F1's appeal at doing so, in this instance is felt to be less than Indy.
McLaren are a traditional privateer rather than a manufacturer though, like Williams they go racing because they can get enough sponsorship on their cars to afford to go racing. Mercedes and Ferrari are different, they look to sell road cars off the back of the F1 efforts. The McLaren road cars are quite new (and bloody fantastic, if anyone gets the chance to have a go in one!)
Alonso wants to win the 'triple crown', McLaren can facilitate this while helping their sister-company with the road cars at a time when he's pissed off at trying to get a point rather than a win in F1. Win-win, except for those who expect the best drivers to be at Monaco.
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Isn't the whole of motor racing incl. F1 designed to sell more road cars?
Depends who you are talking about. Historically, Ferrari have sold road cars to fund their racing addiction. Whether that idealized view of the world still exists today is another matter. I don't know if RedBull go racing and doing other stuff to sell their hideous drink, but I don't think so.
On the other hand, Mercedes (and other big manufacturers in the past) have at the very least only tolerated spending money on racing during the good times.
"Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. "
Splutters. Wow. That's an incredible accusation to make from what I've written on here in the past.
Take the Kurds. I've repeatedly said the best thing is for them to get autonomy of some description in Syria. Yet I've also criticised the PKK *and* Turkey for their conflict, and bemoaned the death of the peace process. It's not as if I've ever commended ISIS or AlN for anything either.
Your obsession with Saudi seems to be over other things, and you're just using Syria as a convenient whipping-boy. Saudi are essentially irrelevant in the conflict as-is. It's the Iranian and Russians who hold the power, and perhaps even Assad's strings.
So what 'clear bias' is this? As I asked below, spit it out.
I have no idea how your mind works. All I know is you have a record on here of playing down anything at all which you incorrectly perceive might be viewed as support for Assad. Your knee jerk ill informed calls for bombing Syria show just how divorced from reality you are.
Why are you like this? I have no idea. But you don't always have to know someone's reasons to know they are displaying seriously warped behaviour over an issue.
The basic facts are:
We want Assad gone. We will not achieve that through military means only through political means. Dropping bombs does not win wars. That has been shown over and over again. Russia and Iran are part of the problem. They are also part of the solution whether we like it or not. Saudi Arabia is part of the problem. They will not be part of the solution as long as they persist in religious wars against the Shia in the Middle East.
Unless of course you believe that or own intelligence services are wrong.
LOL. So the accusations of 'bias' you made against me in a couple of posts amounts to the fact I'm against Assad. I'm against a man who has murdered tens, or hundreds, of thousands of his own people, used chemical weapons, and created a civil war.
Let me think about that.
Hmmm.
Yep, I'm biased against him. And I'm proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm biased *for* any of the other parties, except perhaps the innocent Syrian people caught up in the mess he created.
As for your position: it is shown by your repeated defences of Assad and your "look, squirrel!" comments about Saudi, absolving Assad of starting the civil war.
Problem is plenty of people will think it unfair, perhaps even a majority, but the first time Which is why John McDonnell is arguing for increasing the 'triple lock' on pensions to 2025.
Politicians all know that old people vote, removing the TL now there's a bit of inflation is undoubtedly the right thing to do from the perspective of the public finances.
This won't win Labour any voters over 65, it'll just lose them younger voters.
Hope so. The only proposal close to being "costed" that Labour have come up with, was for VAT on private schooling to pay for free school meals for everyone.
McIRA clearly doesn't understand that elasticity of demand will mean he also has to deal with those who choose to move from private to state sector education as a result of the 20% price increase. I wonder if he studied economics at all.
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Isn't the whole of motor racing incl. F1 designed to sell more road cars?
Depends who you are talking about. Historically, Ferrari have sold road cars to fund their racing addiction. Whether that idealized view of the world still exists today is another matter. I don't know if RedBull go racing and doing other stuff to sell their hideous drink, but I don't think so.
On the other hand, Mercedes (and other big manufacturers in the past) have at the very least only tolerated spending money on racing during the good times.
McLaren have a previous history in the Indy 500, afaicr including several wins (pre-Dennis, so not really the same company).
Problem is plenty of people will think it unfair, perhaps even a majority, but the first time Which is why John McDonnell is arguing for increasing the 'triple lock' on pensions to 2025.
Politicians all know that old people vote, removing the TL now there's a bit of inflation is undoubtedly the right thing to do from the perspective of the public finances.
This won't win Labour any voters over 65, it'll just lose them younger voters.
The state pension is only slowly recovering the level it stood at in Thatcher's time (vs. incomes). Are we criticising a basic payment of ~£7.5k/yr?
It's already almost the lowest state pension in the western world. The US pays considerably more especially if you contributed more.
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Isn't the whole of motor racing incl. F1 designed to sell more road cars?
Yes, and presumably F1's appeal at doing so, in this instance is felt to be less than Indy.
McLaren are a traditional privateer rather than a manufacturer though, like Williams they go racing because they can get enough sponsorship on their cars to afford to go racing. Mercedes and Ferrari are different, they look to sell road cars off the back of the F1 efforts. The McLaren road cars are quite new (and bloody fantastic, if anyone gets the chance to have a go in one!)
Alonso wants to win the 'triple crown', McLaren can facilitate this while helping their sister-company with the road cars at a time when he's pissed off at trying to get a point rather than a win in F1. Win-win, except for those who expect the best drivers to be at Monaco.
It's far from the state boxing has got itself into, that said.
"Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. "
Splutters. Wow. That's an incredible accusation to make from what I've written on here in the past.
Take the Kurds. I've repeatedly said the best thing is for them to get autonomy of some description in Syria. Yet I've also criticised the PKK *and* Turkey for their conflict, and bemoaned the death of the peace process. It's not as if I've ever commended ISIS or AlN for anything either.
Your obsession with Saudi seems to be over other things, and you're just using Syria as a convenient whipping-boy. Saudi are essentially irrelevant in the conflict as-is. It's the Iranian and Russians who hold the power, and perhaps even Assad's strings.
So what 'clear bias' is this? As I asked below, spit it out.
I have no idea how your mind works. All I know is you have a record on here of playing down anything at all which you incorrectly perceive might be viewed as support for Assad. Your knee jerk ill informed calls for bombing Syria show just how divorced from reality you are.
Why are you like this? I have no idea. But you don't always have to know someone's reasons to know they are displaying seriously warped behaviour over an issue.
The basic facts are:
We want Assad gone. We will not achieve that through military means only through political means. Dropping bombs does not win wars. That has been shown over and over again. Russia and Iran are part of the problem. They are also part of the solution whether we like it or not. Saudi Arabia is part of the problem. They will not be part of the solution as long as they persist in religious wars against the Shia in the Middle East.
Unless of course you believe that or own intelligence services are wrong.
My position in 2013 was that Assad had used chemical weapons, and the world should not ignore that. The use of chemical weapons should be punished. I said we were wrong to ignore Saddam's use of them in the 1980s, but that does not stop us doing the right thing now.
I said that failure to do so would cause the war to spread, cost more lives, and destabilise the region. I was right.
You, on the other hand, are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons - again - and appear to think that the fact that we ignored it in the 1980s means we should ignore it now.
All the suffering we've seen over the last three-and-a-half years is a direct consequence of the policies *you* supported. Maybe it would have been worse if they'd followed my proposal. Perhaps. But I seriously doubt it.
"Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. "
Splutters. Wow. That's an incredible accusation to make from what I've written on here in the past.
Take the Kurds. I've repeatedly said the best thing is for them to get autonomy of some description in Syria. Yet I've also criticised the PKK *and* Turkey for their conflict, and bemoaned the death of the peace process. It's not as if I've ever commended ISIS or AlN for anything either.
Your obsession with Saudi seems to be over other things, and you're just using Syria as a convenient whipping-boy. Saudi are essentially irrelevant in the conflict as-is. It's the Iranian and Russians who hold the power, and perhaps even Assad's strings.
So what 'clear bias' is this? As I asked below, spit it out.
I have no idea how your mind works. All I know is you have a record on here of playing down anything at all which you incorrectly perceive might be viewed as support for Assad. Your knee jerk ill informed calls for bombing Syria show just how divorced from reality you are.
Why are you like this? I have no idea. But you don't always have to know someone's reasons to know they are displaying seriously warped behaviour over an issue.
The basic facts are:
We want Assad gone. We will not achieve that through military means only through political means. Dropping bombs does not win wars. That has been shown over and over again. Russia and Iran are part of the problem. They are also part of the solution whether we like it or not. Saudi Arabia is part of the problem. They will not be part of the solution as long as they persist in religious wars against the Shia in the Middle East.
Unless of course you believe that or own intelligence services are wrong.
LOL. So the accusations of 'bias' you made against me in a couple of posts amounts to the fact I'm against Assad. I'm against a man who has murdered tens, or hundreds, of thousands of his own people, used chemical weapons, and created a civil war.
Let me think about that.
Hmmm.
Yep, I'm biased against him. And I'm proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm biased *for* any of the other parties, except perhaps the innocent Syrian people caught up in the mess he created.
As for your position: it is shown by your repeated defences of Assad and your "look, squirrel!" comments about Saudi, absolving Assad of starting the civil war.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
Problem is plenty of people will think it unfair, perhaps even a majority, but the first time Which is why John McDonnell is arguing for increasing the 'triple lock' on pensions to 2025.
Politicians all know that old people vote, removing the TL now there's a bit of inflation is undoubtedly the right thing to do from the perspective of the public finances.
This won't win Labour any voters over 65, it'll just lose them younger voters.
I consider that the whole assumption that retired people are so selfish as to vote only in their own immediate financial interests is very insulting.
It seems to me that the entire range of pensioners' benefits should be open to examination. There's certainly room for scaling things back.
Bus travel, for instance - why should we get nation-wide free travel? Why shouldn't it be restricted again to one's own area? Or why shouldn't there be a compromise and (say) pay half-fare? I live in a tourist area and it really annoys me that the local council has to pay for tourists' holiday bus travel when they're so hard-pressed to pay for local things.
I pay for a rail-card which gives me a third off the fare. What's wrong with the same approach to buses?
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Isn't the whole of motor racing incl. F1 designed to sell more road cars?
Depends who you are talking about. Historically, Ferrari have sold road cars to fund their racing addiction. Whether that idealized view of the world still exists today is another matter. I don't know if RedBull go racing and doing other stuff to sell their hideous drink, but I don't think so.
On the other hand, Mercedes (and other big manufacturers in the past) have at the very least only tolerated spending money on racing during the good times.
McLaren have a previous history in the Indy 500, afaicr including several wins (pre-Dennis, so not really the same company).
Yes, they won the 500 in '74 and '76, but haven't competed since '79.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally.
Payroll taxes go up from 45.8% to 55.8% at £43k/yr. So it is only a 10% jump.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
"Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. "
Splutters. Wow. That's an incredible accusation to make from what I've written on here in the past.
Take the Kurds. I've repeatedly said the best thing is for them to get autonomy of some description in Syria. Yet I've also criticised the PKK *and* Turkey for their conflict, and bemoaned the death of the peace process. It's not as if I've ever commended ISIS or AlN for anything either.
Your obsession with Saudi seems to be over other things, and you're just using Syria as a convenient whipping-boy. Saudi are essentially irrelevant in the conflict as-is. It's the Iranian and Russians who hold the power, and perhaps even Assad's strings.
So what 'clear bias' is this? As I asked below, spit it out.
I have no idea how your mind works. All I know is you have a record on here of playing down anything at all which you incorrectly perceive might be viewed as support for Assad. Your knee jerk ill informed calls for bombing Syria show just how divorced from reality you are.
Why are you like this? I have no idea. But you don't always have to know someone's reasons to know they are displaying seriously warped behaviour over an issue.
The basic facts are:
We want Assad gone. We will not achieve that through military means only through political means. Dropping bombs does not win wars. That has been shown
Unless of course you believe that or own intelligence services are wrong.
LOL. So the accusations of 'bias' you made against me in a couple of posts amounts to the fact I'm against Assad. I'm against a man who has murdered tens, or hundreds, of thousands of his own people, used chemical weapons, and created a civil war.
Let me think about that.
Hmmm.
Yep, I'm biased against him. And I'm proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm biased *for* any of the other parties, except perhaps the innocent Syrian people caught up in the mess he created.
As for your position: it is shown by your repeated defences of Assad and your "look, squirrel!" comments about Saudi, absolving Assad of starting the civil war.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
Charles was a key factor in provoking it through his actions, what a silly comment to make. We don't even need to apportion the level of blame to know the holders of office can definitely aid in starting a conflict to oust them.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
Perhaps in true Nordic style Nick is suggesting 50% VAT?
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
It's possible: the A14 upgrade was due to be a toll road, but enough pressure was put on the government a couple of years ago for them to reverse that decision.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
On a purely semantic point though, he still didn't 'start' the war any more than Nicholas II started the Russian revolution or Louis XVI the French one.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Surely that would be much much less money raised than currently?
I would like to see a shift in burden of taxation away from labour income and toward capital.
Perhaps some combination of wealth taxes, property taxes, land taxes etc. could be raised with a corresponding fall in income tax.
My position in 2013 was that Assad had used chemical weapons, and the world should not ignore that. The use of chemical weapons should be punished. I said we were wrong to ignore Saddam's use of them in the 1980s, but that does not stop us doing the right thing now.
I said that failure to do so would cause the war to spread, cost more lives, and destabilise the region. I was right.
You, on the other hand, are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons - again - and appear to think that the fact that we ignored it in the 1980s means we should ignore it now.
All the suffering we've seen over the last three-and-a-half years is a direct consequence of the policies *you* supported. Maybe it would have been worse if they'd followed my proposal. Perhaps. But I seriously doubt it.
Your view was that we should do exactly what we have done many times before and what has failed on every occasion which is to drop bombs on people as an easy way to express our outrage whilst knowing it will make not a blind bit of difference. As armchair general's go you really are one of the worst. Willing to inflict suffering on others even when it will do no good what so ever just to make yourself feel better that you are 'doing something'. Meanwhile all you actually do is make things far worse.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
What are the odds on Nick Palmer for next Labour leader?
You’ll be glad to hear, Aunty is no longer pushing the white supremacist theory.
I thought they were pushing a anti-fascist theory?
BBC - Who could be behind the attack?
Despite the apparent claim of an Islamist motive, the attack does not have much in common with previous such attacks, says the BBC's correspondent in Berlin, Damien McGuinness.
The explosives were not designed to cause maximum damage in a crowd - or to target the stadium itself, which is several kilometres away.
Our correspondent says it could be an attack by right-wing extremists. Borussia Dortmund has been plagued recently with violent hooliganism.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
LOL. You've repeatedly said that Saudi started the civil war as a deflection from Assad's true role.
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
Perhaps in true Nordic style Nick is suggesting 50% VAT?
It'd leave a quite breathtaking hole in the public finances. But why is Nick pretending that the basic tax rate is 20% ? Is he self employed, over 65 and without a 2012 dated student loan ?
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
What are the odds on Nick Palmer for next Labour leader?
He would have better odds for next Tory leader on such a tax policy
My position in 2013 was that Assad had used chemical weapons, and the world should not ignore that. The use of chemical weapons should be punished. I said we were wrong to ignore Saddam's use of them in the 1980s, but that does not stop us doing the right thing now.
I said that failure to do so would cause the war to spread, cost more lives, and destabilise the region. I was right.
You, on the other hand, are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons - again - and appear to think that the fact that we ignored it in the 1980s means we should ignore it now.
All the suffering we've seen over the last three-and-a-half years is a direct consequence of the policies *you* supported. Maybe it would have been worse if they'd followed my proposal. Perhaps. But I seriously doubt it.
Your view was that we should do exactly what we have done many times before and what has failed on every occasion which is to drop bombs on people as an easy way to express our outrage whilst knowing it will make not a blind bit of difference. As armchair general's go you really are one of the worst. Willing to inflict suffering on others even when it will do no good what so ever just to make yourself feel better that you are 'doing something'. Meanwhile all you actually do is make things far worse.
Lordy. Your position was to do nothing, which is what we did. And we've ended up with three-and-a-half years of more bloodshed and further instability in the region. Meanwhile, chemical weapons are still being used, and other regimes will be wondering why, if there's no penalty in having them, they shouldn't be developing them.
"As armchair general's go you really are one of the worst."
Dismissing based on a gut feeling is what lunatic conspiracy theorists do. Sure they turn out to be right sometimes, by sheer luck, but it is coincidental.
Besides, I don't think the kind of logic Roger is trying to apply works with Chemical weapons. They are terror weapons designed to have an effect far beyond their basic physical action and a scope that goes far beyond just the immediate tactical geographic range. To assume Assad is using them for logical tactical or strategic reasons is not necessarily going to get you any answers.
Yes. Quite why Assad has used them is a very intriguing question given that the war seems to have turned in his favour - so we can rule out their use as an act of desperation as it was the first time.
The most likely explanation, to me, is that he is sending an open letter about the post-war settlement to both the population and the wider world, and that it is a message counter-signed by Putin.
Which is yet another reason why dropping a few bombs on him will change absolutely nothing. If he is as secure in his position as he thinks he is and has the backing of external powers militarily then nothing we can reasonably do is going to change things.
You actually could do something that would make life better even if it would not get you any closer to getting rid of him and that would be the no fly zone idea.
There are multiple reasons why that is a non starter. Even before the civil war his anti-aircraft capabilities were far in advance of anything the west has dealt with this century. For any no fly zone to be effective you need to have destroyed the anti-aircraft capabilities on the ground. Moreover they were already crewed by Russians so we would have had to accept that we would be attacking and killing Russian forces. I am not sure there is anyone mad enough even on here to think that is a good way to go.
Edit: Actually Jessop probably is that mad but he is so divorced from reality that I am not sure we need to be concerned with him.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
What are the odds on Nick Palmer for next Labour leader?
He would have better odds for next Tory leader on such a tax policy
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
LOL. You've repeatedly said that Saudi started the civil war as a deflection from Assad's true role.
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
Again you lie. At no time did I say they started the civil war. I think you read what you want to read because you are so blinded by your own bias. Stop lying and start accepting that there are bad people on all sides and just claiming one side is entirely to blame for everything wrong in the country. Again unless you know better than the British Intelligence services - a point you persistently ignore.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
What are the odds on Nick Palmer for next Labour leader?
He would have better odds for next Tory leader on such a tax policy
Tories for NP!!!
The Broxtowe shuffle would be complete if the Lib Dem candidate switched to Labour, Nick to the Tories, and Anna Soubry to the Lib Dems.
Problem is plenty of people will think it unfair, perhaps even a majority, but the first time Which is why John McDonnell is arguing for increasing the 'triple lock' on pensions to 2025.
Politicians all know that old people vote, removing the TL now there's a bit of inflation is undoubtedly the right thing to do from the perspective of the public finances.
This won't win Labour any voters over 65, it'll just lose them younger voters.
I consider that the whole assumption that retired people are so selfish as to vote only in their own immediate financial interests is very insulting.
It seems to me that the entire range of pensioners' benefits should be open to examination. There's certainly room for scaling things back.
Bus travel, for instance - why should we get nation-wide free travel? Why shouldn't it be restricted again to one's own area? Or why shouldn't there be a compromise and (say) pay half-fare? I live in a tourist area and it really annoys me that the local council has to pay for tourists' holiday bus travel when they're so hard-pressed to pay for local things.
I pay for a rail-card which gives me a third off the fare. What's wrong with the same approach to buses?
(And good afternoon, everyone.)
I agree in general about the *pensioner perks* but on free off-peak bus travel, I think there's a sound case to be made for keeping the current arrangement.
Not only does it not really cost very much while making some otherwise unviable routes, viable - but it has knock on social benefits. It's an unfortunate stereotype, but some elderly people can get trapped in a habit of counting every last penny - literally *giving them* a *free* bus pass can get people out and about once, twice, three, four times a week, when perhaps otherwise they wouldn't leave their home. Health & mental health-wise, that stuff really matters and if a free (taxpayer subsidised) bus pass removes a psychological barrier of paying £4 return to go into town (or whatever) then I think it's worth it. In a compassionate society, I think we should be thinking about these small things that can actually make a big difference to peoples quality of life.
It also improves road safety! In my experience, many elderly people cling on to their cars long after they should have given up driving. When people fear having their car taken off them if they say the wrong thing to the doctor etc - well, a free bus pass makes giving up the car less of an issue.
As a millennial (god I hate that phrase), I'm more than happy to subsidise free bus passes for the elderly. I think lots of other pensioner benefits should be cut though!
Francois Fillon has been on 19 or 20% in all of the last 15 OpinionWay polls. Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron are slipping, but not to the direct advantage of Francois Fillon.
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
I think left-of-centre parties need to grapple with the idea that ever raising taxes is suicide - probably best done by ring-fencing what it's for. Personally I'd introduce a 30p rate for the upper middle earners from say 75K - the jump from 20 to 40 is unusual internationally. Raising the 40p thresold to say £120K would soften the blow for the successful, and the balance of the revenue could be ring-fenced for NHS and social care, which pretty much everyone concees are both in difficulty.
Bloody hell Nick, fair play about income tax rates. So you say income taxes should be: 20% £12-75k 30% £75k-120k 40% above £120k. Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though? Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
Perhaps in true Nordic style Nick is suggesting 50% VAT?
It'd leave a quite breathtaking hole in the public finances. But why is Nick pretending that the basic tax rate is 20% ? Is he self employed, over 65 and without a 2012 dated student loan ?
We have a very disingenuous conversation about tax rates in this country because of NI. The real income tax rates are way higher than the headline rates. It's one reason why we can't really increase the tax take on income - we're already on the Laffer curve downslope.
Francois Fillon has been on 19 or 20% in all of the last 15 OpinionWay polls. Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron are slipping, but not to the direct advantage of Francois Fillon.
Wondering out loud whether Fillon vs Melanchon might be possible now. Certainly beginning to look like the flash-in-the-pan Macron might not make run off....
Francois Fillon has been on 19 or 20% in all of the last 15 OpinionWay polls. Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron are slipping, but not to the direct advantage of Francois Fillon.
Though on today's poll he is almost as far ahead of Melenchon as he is behind Macron and Fillon's supporters are older than Macron's and more likely to vote
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
LOL. You've repeatedly said that Saudi started the civil war as a deflection from Assad's true role.
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
Again you lie. At no time did I say they started the civil war. I think you read what you want to read because you are so blinded by your own bias. Stop lying and start accepting that there are bad people on all sides and just claiming one side is entirely to blame for everything wrong in the country. Again unless you know better than the British Intelligence services - a point you persistently ignore.
You really should go back and re-read your own comments.
And where have I not accepted there are bad people on all sides? I've criticised all sides in the past.
But to go back to my previous comment:
"And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?"
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
Well said Cyclefree. If Syria 'needs to be bombed just because' well why is it us that needs to bomb them?
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
I think the problem is that we do hold some responsibility for this. We have actively encouraged some of the worst participants in the wars of the last 40 years and are continuing to do so. To just say that it is no longer our problem and walk away seems an unacceptable response.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
LOL. You've repeatedly said that Saudi started the civil war as a deflection from Assad's true role.
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
"Killing his own people" is such a strange way of describing what inevitably goes on in a civil war. If the US executes someone we don't say the Americans 'are executing their own people'. Or to make it even more personal 'Donald Trump (or whoever the president might be) is executing his own people. Who do you suppose thinks of these methods of demonising leaders so crudely? Government propagandists? PR Companies?
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
I agree to an extent, and especially in relation to the experience of Iraq. But in Syria's case there's a massive confounding issue, and that's the use of chemical weapons.
The vast majority of the world has agreed treaties against the manufacture, yet alone use, of chemical and biological weapons. This is a good thing: it keeps us all safe.
But when someone manufactures and uses chemical weapons, we have a choice: ignore it, and let the treaties crumble, or act.
Neither are a particularly palatable option. Which do you prefer? IMV doing nothing is safest in the short term, but highly dangerous in the long term.
(The midway bodge is the one Russia forced onto us, which was to have the chemical weapons (which he didn't have) destroyed. As we saw last week, that wasn't very effective).
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
More than 5 million people have died through war in Congo in the last 20 years No one in the developed world seems to care about that at all. Few even know about it. The lack of implications for the West mean that the West has felt able to avert its eyes from that one.
Syria is "our" problem to the extent that it destabilises a region in which the West has a keen economic interest and to the extent that it has produced a wave of migrants that has in turn destabilised European countries. I also take @Richard_Tyndall's point about responsibility.
The complete absence of aims or a plan is what concerns me about intervening decisively in Syria. The risk of further destabilisation is what concerns me about not intervening in Syria. I'm waiting to be persuaded either way. At the moment, the absence of aims or a plan pushes me towards not intervening too deeply.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
LOL. You've repeatedly said that Saudi started the civil war as a deflection from Assad's true role.
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
Again you lie. At no time did I say they started the civil war. I think you read what you want to read because you are so blinded by your own bias. Stop lying and start accepting that there are bad people on all sides and just claiming one side is entirely to blame for everything wrong in the country. Again unless you know better than the British Intelligence services - a point you persistently ignore.
You really should go back and re-read your own comments.
And where have I not accepted there are bad people on all sides? I've criticised all sides in the past.
But to go back to my previous comment:
"And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?"
Care to answer that, or apologise?
As I said before I have no idea why you have such bigoted views. All I can see is that they are there and they blind you to the extent of preventing you having a rational view of what is going on. So certainly no apology for pointing out you very evident failings.
Oh and I suggest you point out where I said either that Assad is blameless or that Saudi started the civil war. Both of these were outright falsehoods - or as I prefer to call them, knowing you do it intentionally - lies. You really are a quite astoundingly dishonest person.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
LOL. You've repeatedly said that Saudi started the civil war as a deflection from Assad's true role.
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
"Killing his own people" is such a strange way of describing what inevitably goes on in a civil war. If the US executes someone we don't say the Americans 'are executing their own people'. Or to make it even more personal 'Donald Trump (or whoever the president might be) is executing his own people. Who do you suppose thinks of these methods of demonising leaders they don't like so crudely? Government propagandists? PR Companies?
How would you describe it? "Inviting citizens to lovely holiday camps" ?
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
More than 5 million people have died through war in Congo in the last 20 years No one in the developed world seems to care about that at all. Few even know about it. The lack of implications for the West mean that the West has felt able to avert its eyes from that one.
Syria is "our" problem to the extent that it destabilises a region in which the West has a keen economic interest and to the extent that it has produced a wave of migrants that has in turn destabilised European countries. I also take @Richard_Tyndall's point about responsibility.
The complete absence of aims or a plan is what concerns me about intervening decisively in Syria. The risk of further destabilisation is what concerns me about not intervening in Syria. I'm waiting to be persuaded either way. At the moment, the absence of aims or a plan pushes me towards not intervening too deeply.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
You really are turning into an inveterate liar Jessop. Point out anywhere I have ever said that Assad is blameless. Otherwise you should keep your bigoted views to yourself.
LOL. You've repeatedly said that Saudi started the civil war as a deflection from Assad's true role.
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
Again you lie. At no time did I say they started the civil war. I think you read what you want to read because you are so blinded by your own bias. Stop lying and start accepting that there are bad people on all sides and just claiming one side is entirely to blame for everything wrong in the country. Again unless you know better than the British Intelligence services - a point you persistently ignore.
You really should go back and re-read your own comments.
And where have I not accepted there are bad people on all sides? I've criticised all sides in the past.
But to go back to my previous comment:
"And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?"
Care to answer that, or apologise?
As I said before I have no idea why you have such bigoted views. All I can see is that they are there and they blind you to the extent of preventing you having a rational view of what is going on. So certainly no apology for pointing out you very evident failings.
Oh and I suggest you point out where I said either that Assad is blameless or that Saudi started the civil war. Both of these were outright falsehoods - or as I prefer to call them, knowing you do it intentionally - lies. You really are a quite astoundingly dishonest person.
And I'm asking you why you claim my views are bigoted.
Go on, unless you want your accusations of being astoundingly dishonest to fall on yourself.
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
I agree to an extent, and especially in relation to the experience of Iraq. But in Syria's case there's a massive confounding issue, and that's the use of chemical weapons.
The vast majority of the world has agreed treaties against the manufacture, yet alone use, of chemical and biological weapons. This is a good thing: it keeps us all safe.
But when someone manufactures and uses chemical weapons, we have a choice: ignore it, and let the treaties crumble, or act.
Neither are a particularly palatable option. Which do you prefer? IMV doing nothing is safest in the short term, but highly dangerous in the long term.
(The midway bodge is the one Russia forced onto us, which was to have the chemical weapons (which he didn't have) destroyed. As we saw last week, that wasn't very effective).
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
More than 5 million people have died through war in Congo in the last 20 years No one in the developed world seems to care about that at all. Few even know about it. The lack of implications for the West mean that the West has felt able to avert its eyes from that one.
Syria is "our" problem to the extent that it destabilises a region in which the West has a keen economic interest and to the extent that it has produced a wave of migrants that has in turn destabilised European countries. I also take @Richard_Tyndall's point about responsibility.
The complete absence of aims or a plan is what concerns me about intervening decisively in Syria. The risk of further destabilisation is what concerns me about not intervening in Syria. I'm waiting to be persuaded either way. At the moment, the absence of aims or a plan pushes me towards not intervening too deeply.
A real measure of our maturity and responsibility will be whether or not we continue to try and find viable solutions for the Middle East (as opposed to just throwing ordnance around) when we no longer have need of their main export. I would like to think we would remain engaged and seek solutions but I am not convinced it will happen.
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
More than 5 million people have died through war in Congo in the last 20 years No one in the developed world seems to care about that at all. Few even know about it. The lack of implications for the West mean that the West has felt able to avert its eyes from that one.
Syria is "our" problem to the extent that it destabilises a region in which the West has a keen economic interest and to the extent that it has produced a wave of migrants that has in turn destabilised European countries. I also take @Richard_Tyndall's point about responsibility.
The complete absence of aims or a plan is what concerns me about intervening decisively in Syria. The risk of further destabilisation is what concerns me about not intervening in Syria. I'm waiting to be persuaded either way. At the moment, the absence of aims or a plan pushes me towards not intervening too deeply.
A real measure of our maturity and responsibility will be whether or not we continue to try and find viable solutions for the Middle East (as opposed to just throwing ordnance around) when we no longer have need of their main export. I would like to think we would remain engaged and seek solutions but I am not convinced it will happen.
I think that we, as in the predominantly Christian West, have no hope in resolving the conflict in the ME. The violent differences between Muslim sects is such that it will need an internal Muslim resolution as any intervention will be seen a religious.
And I'm asking you why you claim my views are bigoted.
Go on, unless you want your accusations of being astoundingly dishonest to fall on yourself.
You refuse to accept that anyone other than one side has any guilt in this conflict. You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue. You do this to the extent that the only way you can win your arguments is to assign views to other people that they have never expressed and have clearly denied. When someone says that perhaps things are not quite as black and white as you like to make out you accuse them of being supporters and defendants of the Assad regime and then construct lies to support that view. You are in fact the very definition of a bigot.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
No-one seems to have any sort of strategy or plan. Doing something just for the sake of it seems to me to be daft, possibly counter-productive and almost certainly ineffective.
The Middle East needs to sort out its own affairs. Whether the nations and people there are able to do so is another matter.
We would do well to reduce our economic dependency on oil as fast as possible. To be economically dependant on such an unstable region is foolish.
We should try and provide such humanitarian help as we can - from common human decency - but in the end we need to look after our own interests first until the nations of the Middle East grow up and learn how to get on with each other and with their own people within functioning civilised polities. We cannot do this for them through military intervention.
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
More than 5 million people have died through war in Congo in the last 20 years No one in the developed world seems to care about that at all. Few even know about it. The lack of implications for the West mean that the West has felt able to avert its eyes from that one.
Syria is "our" problem to the extent that it destabilises a region in which the West has a keen economic interest and to the extent that it has produced a wave of migrants that has in turn destabilised European countries. I also take @Richard_Tyndall's point about responsibility.
The complete absence of aims or a plan is what concerns me about intervening decisively in Syria. The risk of further destabilisation is what concerns me about not intervening in Syria. I'm waiting to be persuaded either way. At the moment, the absence of aims or a plan pushes me towards not intervening too deeply.
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
I agree to an extent, and especially in relation to the experience of Iraq. But in Syria's case there's a massive confounding issue, and that's the use of chemical weapons.
The vast majority of the world has agreed treaties against the manufacture, yet alone use, of chemical and biological weapons. This is a good thing: it keeps us all safe.
But when someone manufactures and uses chemical weapons, we have a choice: ignore it, and let the treaties crumble, or act.
Neither are a particularly palatable option. Which do you prefer? IMV doing nothing is safest in the short term, but highly dangerous in the long term.
(The midway bodge is the one Russia forced onto us, which was to have the chemical weapons (which he didn't have) destroyed. As we saw last week, that wasn't very effective).
It's possible: the A14 upgrade was due to be a toll road, but enough pressure was put on the government a couple of years ago for them to reverse that decision.
Edit: and thanks for the link.
If the M6 Toll weren't a toll road, there'd be less traffic on the current M6.
I think that we, as in the predominantly Christian West, have no hope in resolving the conflict in the ME. The violent differences between Muslim sects is such that it will need an internal Muslim resolution as any intervention will be seen a religious.
Whilst there may be some truth in that, it is difficult to deny that we have played a large part in helping these conflicts to develop, whether through arbitrary division of lands, arranging the overthrow of governments we deem counter to our interests, helping to cover up crimes by those we support or supplying weapons etc to prop up so called friendly governments. To say it is then none of our business does not seem a viable position to take.
No-one seems to have any sort of strategy or plan. Doing something just for the sake of it seems to me to be daft, possibly counter-productive and almost certainly ineffective.
The Middle East needs to sort out its own affairs. Whether the nations and people there are able to do so is another matter.
We would do well to reduce our economic dependency on oil as fast as possible. To be economically dependant on such an unstable region is foolish.
We should try and provide such humanitarian help as we can - from common human decency - but in the end we need to look after our own interests first until the nations of the Middle East grow up and learn how to get on with each other and with their own people within functioning civilised polities. We cannot do this for them through military intervention.
Of course humanitarian help is also a political act.
How much is it worth paying to be allowed to get out of south Essex? You are allowed to specify if the answer is dependent on the destination being north Kent.
And I'm asking you why you claim my views are bigoted.
Go on, unless you want your accusations of being astoundingly dishonest to fall on yourself.
You refuse to accept that anyone other than one side has any guilt in this conflict. You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue. You do this to the extent that the only way you can win your arguments is to assign views to other people that they have never expressed and have clearly denied. When someone says that perhaps things are not quite as black and white as you like to make out you accuse them of being supporters and defendants of the Assad regime and then construct lies to support that view. You are in fact the very definition of a bigot.
"You refuse to accept that anyone other than one side has any guilt in this conflict."
When have I refused to accept that? You're making stuff up.
I've repeatedly said this sort of thing isn't black-and-white: if it were, then they'd be easy to solve. ISIS are bad. Assad is bad. The PKK are bad. The use of chemical weapons is bad.
What matters is the people who are getting killed, injured and displaced.
"You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue."
How much is it worth paying to be allowed to get out of south Essex? You are allowed to specify if the answer is dependent on the destination being north Kent.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
It is same story in many parts of the Middle East. A government trying to bring in secular reforms which Assad Junior did from the early days came up against a theocracy who were able to mobilize the people. The irony is of course that if it wasn't for geopolitical considerations we'd have more than likely been on Assad's side.
And I'm asking you why you claim my views are bigoted.
Go on, unless you want your accusations of being astoundingly dishonest to fall on yourself.
You refuse to accept that anyone other than one side has any guilt in this conflict. You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue. You do this to the extent that the only way you can win your arguments is to assign views to other people that they have never expressed and have clearly denied. When someone says that perhaps things are not quite as black and white as you like to make out you accuse them of being supporters and defendants of the Assad regime and then construct lies to support that view. You are in fact the very definition of a bigot.
"You refuse to accept that anyone other than one side has any guilt in this conflict."
When have I refused to accept that? You're making stuff up.
I've repeatedly said this sort of thing isn't black-and-white: if it were, then they'd be easy to solve. ISIS are bad. Assad is bad. The PKK are bad. The use of chemical weapons is bad.
What matters is the people who are getting killed, injured and displaced.
"You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue."
Wow. (cough) Brexit (/cough).
You have a nasty cough there Jessop. Perhaps it is a fever that has given you trouble with thinking straight and effected your memory. Or perhaps you are just a fundamentally dishonest person.
You’ll be glad to hear, Aunty is no longer pushing the white supremacist theory.
I thought they were pushing a anti-fascist theory?
BBC - Who could be behind the attack?
Despite the apparent claim of an Islamist motive, the attack does not have much in common with previous such attacks, says the BBC's correspondent in Berlin, Damien McGuinness.
The explosives were not designed to cause maximum damage in a crowd - or to target the stadium itself, which is several kilometres away.
Our correspondent says it could be an attack by right-wing extremists. Borussia Dortmund has been plagued recently with violent hooliganism.
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
I agree to an extent, and especially in relation to the experience of Iraq. But in Syria's case there's a massive confounding issue, and that's the use of chemical weapons.
The vast majority of the world has agreed treaties against the manufacture, yet alone use, of chemical and biological weapons. This is a good thing: it keeps us all safe.
But when someone manufactures and uses chemical weapons, we have a choice: ignore it, and let the treaties crumble, or act.
Neither are a particularly palatable option. Which do you prefer? IMV doing nothing is safest in the short term, but highly dangerous in the long term.
(The midway bodge is the one Russia forced onto us, which was to have the chemical weapons (which he didn't have) destroyed. As we saw last week, that wasn't very effective).
Why chemical weapons and not machetes?
Two reasons:
1) There are realistic and proper uses for machetes (the same is true, of course, for some types of gun). There are not many realistic uses for chemical weapons (although chemicals like chlorine are obviously dual-use and exceptionally problematic).
2) We haven't got to the blissful stage where war with machete has been banned. In the rather nirvana-like world where it had, we should be defending the ban where it was broken.
We are slowly managing to get the world to agree on banning different types of weapons (e.g. the partial ban on land mines). We will only make progress on this if we enforce the bans we already have, otherwise it just becomes more of a pointless charade.
Possibly a silly question. But will go ahead anyway.
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
I agree to an extent, and especially in relation to the experience of Iraq. But in Syria's case there's a massive confounding issue, and that's the use of chemical weapons.
The vast majority of the world has agreed treaties against the manufacture, yet alone use, of chemical and biological weapons. This is a good thing: it keeps us all safe.
But when someone manufactures and uses chemical weapons, we have a choice: ignore it, and let the treaties crumble, or act.
Neither are a particularly palatable option. Which do you prefer? IMV doing nothing is safest in the short term, but highly dangerous in the long term.
(The midway bodge is the one Russia forced onto us, which was to have the chemical weapons (which he didn't have) destroyed. As we saw last week, that wasn't very effective).
Why chemical weapons and not machetes?
Two reasons:
1) There are realistic and proper uses for machetes (the same is true, of course, for some types of gun). There are not many realistic uses for chemical weapons (although chemicals like chlorine are obviously dual-use and exceptionally problematic).
2) We haven't got to the blissful stage where war with machete has been banned. In the rather nirvana-like world where it had, we should be defending the ban where it was broken.
We are slowly managing to get the world to agree on banning different types of weapons (e.g. the partial ban on land mines). We will only make progress on this if we enforce the bans we already have, otherwise it just becomes more of a pointless charade.
And I'm asking you why you claim my views are bigoted.
Go on, unless you want your accusations of being astoundingly dishonest to fall on yourself.
You refuse to accept that anyone other than one side has any guilt in this conflict. You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue. You do this to the extent that the only way you can win your arguments is to assign views to other people that they have never expressed and have clearly denied. When someone says that perhaps things are not quite as black and white as you like to make out you accuse them of being supporters and defendants of the Assad regime and then construct lies to support that view. You are in fact the very definition of a bigot.
"You refuse to accept that anyone other than one side has any guilt in this conflict."
When have I refused to accept that? You're making stuff up.
I've repeatedly said this sort of thing isn't black-and-white: if it were, then they'd be easy to solve. ISIS are bad. Assad is bad. The PKK are bad. The use of chemical weapons is bad.
What matters is the people who are getting killed, injured and displaced.
"You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue."
Wow. (cough) Brexit (/cough).
You have a nasty cough there Jessop. Perhaps it is a fever that has given you trouble with thinking straight and effected your memory. Or perhaps you are just a fundamentally dishonest person.
Nope, and I'm slightly sad that you think so. You've done nothing except throw insults and divert, which I'll take as being an example of the paucity of your argument. Which is unusual for you.
How did Assad "start" the Civil War? He was already in power. It's like saying Charles I "started" our Civil War.
By repressing his people, e.g. :
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
Comments
The most likely explanation, to me, is that he is sending an open letter about the post-war settlement to both the population and the wider world, and that it is a message counter-signed by Putin.
i wouldn't be happy as someone who did pay student fees to have to pay twice (once at the start when I started uni, and now via taxation). Unless I'd get a refund (with interest).
'Scotland's jobless total falls by 15,000
The jobless rate dropped by 0.5% to 4.5% in the three months to February, while the rate for the UK as a whole was unchanged at 4.7%.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-39576751
The astonishment is that an F1 team is snubbing what is considered to be the Blue Riband F1 event by sending their star driver to America instead, facilities his own career choices rather than optimising the team's strategy in Monaco. Fair play to them for thinking well outside the box though, if they let Alonso out for the Indy this year (with the team that won last year) and Le Mans next year, he'll be only the second driver after Graham Hill to have won motorsport's 'triple crown'.
https://twitter.com/Motor_Sport/status/852103329350111233
Politicians all know that old people vote, removing the TL now there's a bit of inflation is undoubtedly the right thing to do from the perspective of the public finances.
It does need careful political consideration though, as Brown's famous 75p increase showed - he would have been better off politically facing down a freeze than such a derisory raise in the state pension.
In primary, many if not most schools just don't have the infra to resource this, as Clegg's policy already demonstrated; there are much more deserving areas for funding (the National Funding Formula is going to wreak havoc on large numbers of primaries); and it's not addressing a genuine problem that the staff encounter. Sure, it's a nice-to-have, but one that would create a whole lot of new issues if it's introduced inadequately (which it would be) and would distract attention from the bigger challenges.
You have a point there, his justification was that all the seats were already democrat so there was no partisan advantage to be gained, but if surrounding seats were republican perhaps there was some clever drawing of boundaries involved. The boundaries were unlikely to have been drawn solely for the benefit of community cohesion.
I think the whole idea of community cohesion seats is wrong, but chalked it up to America's obsession with race politics. Of course no democrat is going to actively draw boundaries unfavourable to them, so in a sense gerrymandering is happening in practice if not in theory. I don't think it can be classified as party political gerrymandering officially though - unlike the republican example he showed where they explicitly said it was about partisan advantage, because that's legal.
Alonso wants to win the 'triple crown', McLaren can facilitate this while helping their sister-company with the road cars at a time when he's pissed off at trying to get a point rather than a win in F1. Win-win, except for those who expect the best drivers to be at Monaco.
On the other hand, Mercedes (and other big manufacturers in the past) have at the very least only tolerated spending money on racing during the good times.
Let me think about that.
Hmmm.
Yep, I'm biased against him. And I'm proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm biased *for* any of the other parties, except perhaps the innocent Syrian people caught up in the mess he created.
As for your position: it is shown by your repeated defences of Assad and your "look, squirrel!" comments about Saudi, absolving Assad of starting the civil war.
McIRA clearly doesn't understand that elasticity of demand will mean he also has to deal with those who choose to move from private to state sector education as a result of the 20% price increase. I wonder if he studied economics at all.
It's already almost the lowest state pension in the western world. The US pays considerably more especially if you contributed more.
I said that failure to do so would cause the war to spread, cost more lives, and destabilise the region. I was right.
You, on the other hand, are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons - again - and appear to think that the fact that we ignored it in the 1980s means we should ignore it now.
All the suffering we've seen over the last three-and-a-half years is a direct consequence of the policies *you* supported. Maybe it would have been worse if they'd followed my proposal. Perhaps. But I seriously doubt it.
It seems to me that the entire range of pensioners' benefits should be open to examination. There's certainly room for scaling things back.
Bus travel, for instance - why should we get nation-wide free travel? Why shouldn't it be restricted again to one's own area? Or why shouldn't there be a compromise and (say) pay half-fare? I live in a tourist area and it really annoys me that the local council has to pay for tourists' holiday bus travel when they're so hard-pressed to pay for local things.
I pay for a rail-card which gives me a third off the fare. What's wrong with the same approach to buses?
(And good afternoon, everyone.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/12/new-river-thames-road-crossing-route-unveiled/
Thanks for posting it - I haven't had my civil engineering fix today ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39580594
You’ll be glad to hear, Aunty is no longer pushing the white supremacist theory.
"protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Of course, you may take Tyndall's view that Assad's blameless.
That's for MOST people.
If you're a graduate then it is 54.8 -> 64.8%.
So you say income taxes should be:
20% £12-75k
30% £75k-120k
40% above £120k.
Surely that leaves a massive hole in the spending budget though?
Or have I not understood this, or has your account been hacked, or have you been spending too much time in London where £75k is an average salary?
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/cip/lower-thames-crossing-consultation/user_uploads/lower-thames-crossing-consultation-summary-business-case.pdf
It's possible: the A14 upgrade was due to be a toll road, but enough pressure was put on the government a couple of years ago for them to reverse that decision.
Edit: and thanks for the link.
I would like to see a shift in burden of taxation away from labour income and toward capital.
Perhaps some combination of wealth taxes, property taxes, land taxes etc. could be raised with a corresponding fall in income tax.
Despite the apparent claim of an Islamist motive, the attack does not have much in common with previous such attacks, says the BBC's correspondent in Berlin, Damien McGuinness.
The explosives were not designed to cause maximum damage in a crowd - or to target the stadium itself, which is several kilometres away.
Our correspondent says it could be an attack by right-wing extremists. Borussia Dortmund has been plagued recently with violent hooliganism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39575503?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/2e3befc0-e70a-41c7-b6cb-2f8f0d69a7db/germany&link_location=live-reporting-story
And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?
(Unless you're claiming I'm bigoted because I'm intolerant of Assad's practice of killing of his own people and use of chemical weapons. Which would be an odd definition, but okay. Yep, I am).
Is he self employed, over 65 and without a 2012 dated student loan
"As armchair general's go you really are one of the worst."
LOL. No.
You actually could do something that would make life better even if it would not get you any closer to getting rid of him and that would be the no fly zone idea.
There are multiple reasons why that is a non starter. Even before the civil war his anti-aircraft capabilities were far in advance of anything the west has dealt with this century. For any no fly zone to be effective you need to have destroyed the anti-aircraft capabilities on the ground. Moreover they were already crewed by Russians so we would have had to accept that we would be attacking and killing Russian forces. I am not sure there is anyone mad enough even on here to think that is a good way to go.
Edit: Actually Jessop probably is that mad but he is so divorced from reality that I am not sure we need to be concerned with him.
Le Pen 24%
Macron 23%
Fillon 20%
Mélenchon 18%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017#Verified_candidates
Not only does it not really cost very much while making some otherwise unviable routes, viable - but it has knock on social benefits. It's an unfortunate stereotype, but some elderly people can get trapped in a habit of counting every last penny - literally *giving them* a *free* bus pass can get people out and about once, twice, three, four times a week, when perhaps otherwise they wouldn't leave their home. Health & mental health-wise, that stuff really matters and if a free (taxpayer subsidised) bus pass removes a psychological barrier of paying £4 return to go into town (or whatever) then I think it's worth it. In a compassionate society, I think we should be thinking about these small things that can actually make a big difference to peoples quality of life.
It also improves road safety! In my experience, many elderly people cling on to their cars long after they should have given up driving. When people fear having their car taken off them if they say the wrong thing to the doctor etc - well, a free bus pass makes giving up the car less of an issue.
As a millennial (god I hate that phrase), I'm more than happy to subsidise free bus passes for the elderly. I think lots of other pensioner benefits should be cut though!
Why is Syria our problem? Why do we have to do anything?
So now - and arguing against myself - some answers:-
- a mess in the Middle East creates terrorist groups which threaten us. Yes - but this happens even with apparently stable countries (e.g. S Arabia) and terrorist threats may best be dealt with through intelligence and other means rather than by military intervention.
- the refugee crisis: well maybe we should simply be hard-hearted and say that this is a Middle Eastern problem and it is for Middle Eastern states to deal with the refugees, including those states who have done nothing or very little and concentrate on policing effectively our own borders.
But the question still remains: just because the Middle East is a mess, it does not mean that it is our job to resolve it, not least because there is no obvious solution available and that the reasons for the mess (e.g. the long-standing Sunni/Shia enmity) are ones which are not in our gift to resolve.
And where have I not accepted there are bad people on all sides? I've criticised all sides in the past.
But to go back to my previous comment:
"And my views are 'bigoted' ? Really ? Care to expand, or is it a random word you're flinging about?"
Care to answer that, or apologise?
The vast majority of the world has agreed treaties against the manufacture, yet alone use, of chemical and biological weapons. This is a good thing: it keeps us all safe.
But when someone manufactures and uses chemical weapons, we have a choice: ignore it, and let the treaties crumble, or act.
Neither are a particularly palatable option. Which do you prefer? IMV doing nothing is safest in the short term, but highly dangerous in the long term.
(The midway bodge is the one Russia forced onto us, which was to have the chemical weapons (which he didn't have) destroyed. As we saw last week, that wasn't very effective).
Syria is "our" problem to the extent that it destabilises a region in which the West has a keen economic interest and to the extent that it has produced a wave of migrants that has in turn destabilised European countries. I also take @Richard_Tyndall's point about responsibility.
The complete absence of aims or a plan is what concerns me about intervening decisively in Syria. The risk of further destabilisation is what concerns me about not intervening in Syria. I'm waiting to be persuaded either way. At the moment, the absence of aims or a plan pushes me towards not intervening too deeply.
Melenchon @ 24 To win the first round.
& Fillon 11.5 to win the first round.
& Fillon @ 4.0 to get into the second round.
The 36.0 available to back on Melenchon/Fillon is very poor in comparison.
Oh and I suggest you point out where I said either that Assad is blameless or that Saudi started the civil war. Both of these were outright falsehoods - or as I prefer to call them, knowing you do it intentionally - lies. You really are a quite astoundingly dishonest person.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/13/assads-holocaust-corpses-lined-up-show-scale-of-atrocities-6444710/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/they-were-torturing-to-kill-inside-syrias-death-machine-caesar
(Warning: upsetting images in the first link).
(ps JJ and RT please get a room)
Go on, unless you want your accusations of being astoundingly dishonest to fall on yourself.
No-one seems to have any sort of strategy or plan. Doing something just for the sake of it seems to me to be daft, possibly counter-productive and almost certainly ineffective.
The Middle East needs to sort out its own affairs. Whether the nations and people there are able to do so is another matter.
We would do well to reduce our economic dependency on oil as fast as possible. To be economically dependant on such an unstable region is foolish.
We should try and provide such humanitarian help as we can - from common human decency - but in the end we need to look after our own interests first until the nations of the Middle East grow up and learn how to get on with each other and with their own people within functioning civilised polities. We cannot do this for them through military intervention.
When have I refused to accept that? You're making stuff up.
I've repeatedly said this sort of thing isn't black-and-white: if it were, then they'd be easy to solve. ISIS are bad. Assad is bad. The PKK are bad. The use of chemical weapons is bad.
What matters is the people who are getting killed, injured and displaced.
"You show a complete intolerance of any argument that does not conform with your one sided view of the issue."
Wow. (cough) Brexit (/cough).
F1: the Alonso Ladbrokes specials now include bets for him to win, get pole or finish top 3 in the Indy 500. Any Indy 500 fans with views on this?
There's also 4 on a Monaco special on Button to finish in the top 10. Which is bloody awful.
Of course, I said much the same of 4.5 on Verstappen to get a podium in China.
1) There are realistic and proper uses for machetes (the same is true, of course, for some types of gun). There are not many realistic uses for chemical weapons (although chemicals like chlorine are obviously dual-use and exceptionally problematic).
2) We haven't got to the blissful stage where war with machete has been banned. In the rather nirvana-like world where it had, we should be defending the ban where it was broken.
We are slowly managing to get the world to agree on banning different types of weapons (e.g. the partial ban on land mines). We will only make progress on this if we enforce the bans we already have, otherwise it just becomes more of a pointless charade.