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.
Who is 'we' in this?
(puts on hippy accent): the community of the world, man.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
(puts on hippy accent): the community of the world, man.
Well....a joke answer is just that. Seriously - who should do the bombing and why? What are you proposing given that you are forcefully saying that someone needs to bomb Assad. UK? USA? France? Bolivia? The Vatican? Whose job is it to do the bombing?
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
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.
Your pro-Turkish bias is showing
Well, yes. I'm married to a highly intelligent and beautiful Turk, and have many Turkish friends. I like Turkey. But I'm not sure that's a bias, unless you take an anti-Turk position as the baseline.
That doesn't mean I like Erdogan, or don't criticise Turkey: my view that the Kurds should get a homeland are rather unpopular with the majority of the Turkish population, for instance.
(puts on hippy accent): the community of the world, man.
Well....a joke answer is just that. Seriously - who should do the bombing and why? What are you proposing given that you are forcefully saying that someone needs to bomb Assad. UK? USA? France? Bolivia? The Vatican? Whose job is it to do the bombing?
If we're going to have international treaties then they need to have teeth. It doesn't have to be bombing: diplomacy and/or sanctions could be used.
But IMV the few of these treaties we have are worth protecting.
Wondering out loud whether Fillon vs Melanchon might be possible now.
If you think that is possible then back the following:
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.
One way to look at the prospects is to consider the "reserves" potentisally available from inor candidates. Le Pen, Macron and Fillon all seem to have very solid blocs of support. Hamon (7 and sliding), Dupont (3) and Poutou (2) perhaps less. Turnout is usually high in France so less potential than here for differential turnout to skew the result.
Personally I still think Macron will edge it on round 1 and romp home on round 2.
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.
They're not happy about option "C" in South Essex it seems.
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.
Your pro-Turkish bias is showing
Turkey is the worst example! Under Erdogan it's now more repressive than it was under the genuinely enlightened leadership of Ataturk
Well, yes. Although it wasn't good under some of the military juntas, either.
One of the great tragedies of modern Turkey - perhaps *the* great tragedy - is that the secularist governments proved so incompetent, immoral and corrupt. They gave the Islamists a chance.
Wondering out loud whether Fillon vs Melanchon might be possible now.
If you think that is possible then back the following:
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.
One way to look at the prospects is to consider the "reserves" potentisally available from inor candidates. Le Pen, Macron and Fillon all seem to have very solid blocs of support. Hamon (7 and sliding), Dupont (3) and Poutou (2) perhaps less. Turnout is usually high in France so less potential than here for differential turnout to skew the result.
Personally I still think Macron will edge it on round 1 and romp home on round 2.
I make Melenchon-Fillon 130-1 if the rest of the prices are correct, it is a highly unlikely r2 scenario.
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.
I'm not sure it has changed absolutely nothing.
It's put a line in the sand. Unlike Obama, Trump has sent a signal about what is and what isn't acceptable. If Assad crosses it again, he can expect more of the same. At some point, Putin may decide to back another horse if Assad's actions are interfering too much with Russia's other ambitions. The crucial point in your post is the 'if' at the start of the second sentence. As with all client regimes, their patron will protect them while it's worth their while - but that's a subjective call.
Also, the strike took out a lot of Syrian hardware. Planes are expensive these days (as are missiles) and can't easily be replaced. Assad can't afford that many more attacks like last week.
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.
It is entirely possible if we disengage completely (something currently impossible) then that could be in itself a solution.
If we're going to have international treaties then they need to have teeth. It doesn't have to be bombing: diplomacy and/or sanctions could be used.
But IMV the few of these treaties we have are worth protecting.
So who should apply sanctions? You're still ducking my key question. If 'we' have treaties then 'we' probably ought to enforce them. Who is 'we'? What you are, perhaps inadvertently, highlighting is that there is no authority above the nation state. It goes to the heart of, for example, Corbyn's lazy view that Russia should have a veto over our foreign policy (because they have a UN veto and he wants all military options only to happen if UN approved). The UN is a chocolate teapot. Nation states have the sovereignty to determine for themselves what is in their national advantage and act accordingly.
It's put a line in the sand. Unlike Obama, Trump has sent a signal about what is and what isn't acceptable. If Assad crosses it again, he can expect more of the same. At some point, Putin may decide to back another horse if Assad's actions are interfering too much with Russia's other ambitions. The crucial point in your post is the 'if' at the start of the second sentence. As with all client regimes, their patron will protect them while it's worth their while - but that's a subjective call.
Also, the strike took out a lot of Syrian hardware. Planes are expensive these days (as are missiles) and can't easily be replaced. Assad can't afford that many more attacks like last week.
In addition it's put a line in the sand as far as Putin is concerned too.
One of the great tragedies of modern Turkey - perhaps *the* great tragedy - is that the secularist governments proved so incompetent, immoral and corrupt. They gave the Islamists a chance.
Yes, that's right. Jack Straw as Foreign Secretary told me privately that although Erdogan's lot were difficult they were recognisably politicians, keen to retain popular support and open to doing and sticking to deals that would suit them. By contratst, he had found their secular predecessors to be incapable of negotiating anything at all, since they would arrive with a prepared position dictated by the generals and refuse to shift from it one millimetre.
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
I fear that SeanT's rants against a poster earlier in the week seem to have spawned a more intolerant tone to the site over the past few days. Don't the moderators ever do anything.
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.
Your pro-Turkish bias is showing
Well, yes. I'm married to a highly intelligent and beautiful Turk, and have many Turkish friends. I like Turkey. But I'm not sure that's a bias, unless you take an anti-Turk position as the baseline.
That doesn't mean I like Erdogan, or don't criticise Turkey: my view that the Kurds should get a homeland are rather unpopular with the majority of the Turkish population, for instance.
Lucky you. i love Istanbul. Some of the weirdest clubs in the world. So full of contrasts. I had a Turkish girlfriend for a very short time who has gone from model to weather forcaster. Moonshine (Maetap)
It's put a line in the sand. Unlike Obama, Trump has sent a signal about what is and what isn't acceptable. If Assad crosses it again, he can expect more of the same. At some point, Putin may decide to back another horse if Assad's actions are interfering too much with Russia's other ambitions. The crucial point in your post is the 'if' at the start of the second sentence. As with all client regimes, their patron will protect them while it's worth their while - but that's a subjective call.
Also, the strike took out a lot of Syrian hardware. Planes are expensive these days (as are missiles) and can't easily be replaced. Assad can't afford that many more attacks like last week.
In addition it's put a line in the sand as far as Putin is concerned too.
I really don't think Vladimir Putin was too fussed about this. Why would he be?
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.
(Snip)
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.
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
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.
- 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.
Those differences between muslim sects (and between secularist nationalists vs pan islamic revolutionaries) are mostly fairly recent. Well, at least after the initial Shia/Sunni schism.
When was the last Shia/Sunni conflict before the Eighties?
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
I fear that SeanT's rants against a poster earlier in the week seem to have spawned a more intolerant tone to the site over the past few days. Don't the moderators ever do anything.
Now and then, the Speaker (OGH) could scream 'Order Order', 'I name Mr. Dennis Skinner' [or whoever] then ban him for a day (or two).
I don't mind short bannings if the language gets out of hand but I'd rather have the atmosphere of the HoC than the over-polite HoL.
Perhaps SeanT is to PB as the Beast of Bolsover is to the HoC.
Utterly off-topic, but The Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration Britain, by Ian Mortimer, has just come out. Rather modern (latter 17th century) but the two previous books (Medieval and Elizabethan England) were very enjoyable.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
Closing the tax loopholes in property transaction in London and the SE would be a start
Also how about capping the tax free element on own property transactions - say £500 000 profit
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
Closing the tax loopholes in property transaction in London and the SE would be a start
Also how about capping the tax free element on own property transactions - say £500 000 profit
Didn't know there was no limit on that. Interesting.
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.
There has to be a very high bar as to why any British (or American, or whatever non-local) blood should potentially be put at risk. What is it that will be achieved, and what is our interest in achieving it?
Defending the CWC is worth achieving, IMO. A stitch in time and all that ...
Will a simple bombing achieve that? Hard to tell, probably not. That is really up to Assad at this point. Does it send the right sort of message? Absolutely! Will do good? Well, that depends on the follow up. A one-off bombing that is ignored and then not followed up is worse than nothing.
Prior to this use of CW by Assad, and prior to Syria's accession to the CWC, there was a very strong case that the prohibition of use of CW had become customary international law (i.e. law for all, whether you'd signed up to the specific treaties or not). Any failure to respond to repeated use undermines this, with huge consequences not just for CW use, but in the whole field of customary international law.
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
I fear that SeanT's rants against a poster earlier in the week seem to have spawned a more intolerant tone to the site over the past few days. Don't the moderators ever do anything.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
+1
We want people to generate income, so we shouldn't be taxing income more. Instead we should be shifting the tax burden towards wealth. Credit to the LibDems for at least putting this issue on the agenda in the late 2000's, and to Osbourn for at least being prepared to consider it, until his boss vetoed the idea.
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.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
+1
We want people to generate income, so we shouldn't be taxing income more. Instead we should be shifting the tax burden towards wealth. Credit to the LibDems for at least putting this issue on the agenda in the late 2000's, and to Osbourn for at least being prepared to consider it, until his boss vetoed the idea.
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
I don't know about the law in these situations but the original judge seems to have been entirely looking at it from the point of view that the noise is a bloody inconvenience to this nice couple's wonderful home, and it not being very neighbourly to be so noisy. That it is an active airfield and training exercises are required don't seem to have been a consideration (granted it is only a daily mail write up) worth bothering about, only what a couple who knowingly bought the place feel.
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Maybe we should just accept that the UK's economy is taxed highly enough already and higher rates won't yield more money. We should focus on where we spend money (kill DfiD, some quangoes, local govt mega salaries, etc) and be obessive about efficiency and value for money (deep NHS reform, civil service automation, leave the EU, education vouchers, major supply side reform, etc).
I don't know about the law in these situations but the original judge seems to have been entirely looking at it from the point of view that the noise is a bloody inconvenience to this nice couple's wonderful home, and it not being very neighbourly to be so noisy. That it is an active airfield and training exercises are required don't seem to have been a consideration (granted it is only a daily mail write up) worth bothering about, only what a couple who knowingly bought the place feel.
Yes, the DM writeup suggests that the original judge thought it was horrible they should have to endure the noise of helicopters flying to the airfield next door. No mention (unusually for the DM) of how cheap the house was when they purchased it, compared to those down the road that weren't next to the airfield.
Reminds me of the American tourist at Windsor Castle: "Lovely place you've got here, but why did you build it next to Heathrow?"
For those thinking that Trump's election is an unmitigated disaster, here's something to ponder. There is no guarantee that the alternative on offer would have been better:
Both candidates completely lack introspection and any sense of personal accountability.
Given two equally bad candidates, and despite my visceral dislike for Trump the man, I'd rather go with the one who's instincts are pro-business and conservative on defence and foreign-policy issues, than someone who has to pander to the liberal left and is internationalist on defence issues.
Still hoping for an early Trump impeachment though.
You wonder how many gay couples there are in a group of islands with 3000 people. Judging by the rate of gay marriages in Britain after it was introduced, we can perhaps expect one gay marriage in the Falklands this year.
The murky world of an undercover spy/double?/triple? MI5 <-> IRA agent.
"The one stand-out fact, however, has not been in doubt: for over a decade Scappaticci maintained his cover in the IRA by interrogating fellow British agents to the point where they confessed and were then shot."
You wonder how many gay couples there are in a group of islands with 3000 people. Judging by the rate of gay marriages in Britain after it was introduced, we can perhaps expect one gay marriage in the Falklands this year.
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.
Afternoon all
As I opined earlier, we are "involved" whether we like it or not through a) the existence of IS-sponsored radical terrorism and b) the Syrian Diaspora which has political, economic and humanitarian consequences in Europe (and beyond).
I suppose it's also worth mentioning that in "drawing" the map of parts of the Middle East after 1918 we drew the borders and created the states that are the focus of conflict now.
I agree inasmuch as it ill behoves us to tell people how to run their lives - western democracies have that tendency and one could argue a patchy record at best. That being said, the Middle East didn't ask to be a cockpit in the new Cold War and what has disappointed me so much about Trump/Tillerson but not Johnson (from whom I expected nothing and haven't been disappointed) is how easily the Cold War rhetoric has been invoked.
Russia isn't a evil monster determined by subterfuge and intrigue to conquer the West - the national humiliation of the fall of Communism has been replaced by a new assertive nationalism (sound familiar ?) but they lack the means to be more than a nuisance. However, instead of treating them as a nuisance let's treat them as a serious player.
Instead of trying to humiliate Russia in Assad let's offer them the chance to disengage from Assad and be an integral part in the creation of a new Syrian state.
You wonder how many gay couples there are in a group of islands with 3000 people. Judging by the rate of gay marriages in Britain after it was introduced, we can perhaps expect one gay marriage in the Falklands this year.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
+1
We want people to generate income, so we shouldn't be taxing income more. Instead we should be shifting the tax burden towards wealth. Credit to the LibDems for at least putting this issue on the agenda in the late 2000's, and to Osbourn for at least being prepared to consider it, until his boss vetoed the idea.
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Except for the single form of Capital which manifestly isn't moveable - Land. Don't tax Capital as such - simple institute a wide-ranging Land Value Tax and simultaneously slash Income Tax
and be obessive about efficiency and value for money (deep NHS reform, civil service automation, leave the EU, education vouchers, major supply side reform, etc).
If we were obsessed with efficiency we wouldn't leave the EU. 0.5% net of GDP is a very good deal for the economies of scale it achieves.
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
I fear that SeanT's rants against a poster earlier in the week seem to have spawned a more intolerant tone to the site over the past few days. Don't the moderators ever do anything.
This
The English for "I agree" is "I agree," and why bother to re-post a request for the moderators to do something, after the moderators have done something?
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Maybe we should just accept that the UK's economy is taxed highly enough already and higher rates won't yield more money. We should focus on where we spend money (kill DfiD, some quangoes, local govt mega salaries, etc) and be obessive about efficiency and value for money (deep NHS reform, civil service automation, leave the EU, education vouchers, major supply side reform, etc).
Well, you'd have thought that line of thinking was unarguable. We've never managed to raise more than about 38% GDP in taxes, regardless of rates or fiscal policies. Focusing on how to a.) grow GDP and b.) keep long term spending in line with tax take seems like so obvious a priority that, well, why does it need spelling out?
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.
They're not happy about option "C" in South Essex it seems.
Or indeed North Kent and the contrasting reactions of the Conservative MPs for Gravesham and Dartford speak volumes and could be called a "split".
Well, not really. The Dartford Crossing has improved immensely since they took out the toll booths but the bridge works much better than the old tunnels. A proposal to build a second bridge wasn't the worst thing I had ever heard.
The amount of traffic that flows from the M25 to the M2 via Dartford and vice versa isn't insubstantial but isn't that much in my experience. If the route linked down to the M20 it would help a bit more but the bulk of the Dartford Crossing traffic is traffic going round the M25 and that wouldn't change with the new proposal.
Giving it some thought I'm inclining to Option A which would massively improve the traffic flow going anticlockwise.
You wonder how many gay couples there are in a group of islands with 3000 people. Judging by the rate of gay marriages in Britain after it was introduced, we can perhaps expect one gay marriage in the Falklands this year.
The murky world of an undercover spy/double?/triple? MI5 <-> IRA agent.
"The one stand-out fact, however, has not been in doubt: for over a decade Scappaticci maintained his cover in the IRA by interrogating fellow British agents to the point where they confessed and were then shot."
The panorama on this last night was interesting but totally unsurprising.
Mr. Pulpstar, gender-bending does happen with animals. Clown fish are one example, likewise frogs. Female komodo dragons are capable of parthenogenesis, if there are no chaps about.
You wonder how many gay couples there are in a group of islands with 3000 people. Judging by the rate of gay marriages in Britain after it was introduced, we can perhaps expect one gay marriage in the Falklands this year.
Mr. Pulpstar, gender-bending does happen with animals. Clown fish are one example, likewise frogs. Female komodo dragons are capable of parthenogenesis, if there are no chaps about.
Finding Nemo would have been very different if Marlin after losing his mate had swapped sexes and then started breeding with his (her) son...
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Maybe we should just accept that the UK's economy is taxed highly enough already and higher rates won't yield more money. We should focus on where we spend money (kill DfiD, some quangoes, local govt mega salaries, etc) and be obessive about efficiency and value for money (deep NHS reform, civil service automation, leave the EU, education vouchers, major supply side reform, etc).
The only route to 'deep NHS reform', meaning to me longer lifespan, especially more years in perfect health, while spending less than £120 bn per year, is to address the non-medical causes of ill-health. Including bad diets, cold damp housing, lifestyles and maybe stress (e.g. the current changes to benefits are causing great stress). I can't see a low-tax society being of much help there.
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Maybe we should just accept that the UK's economy is taxed highly enough already and higher rates won't yield more money. We should focus on where we spend money (kill DfiD, some quangoes, local govt mega salaries, etc) and be obessive about efficiency and value for money (deep NHS reform, civil service automation, leave the EU, education vouchers, major supply side reform, etc).
The only route to 'deep NHS reform', meaning to me longer lifespan, especially more years in perfect health, while spending less than £120 bn per year, is to address the non-medical causes of ill-health. Including bad diets, cold damp housing, lifestyles and maybe stress (e.g. the current changes to benefits are causing great stress). I can't see a low-tax society being of much help there.
The problem is, even when we had high rates of tax (remember 98% income tax) the overall tax take still didn't make it into the 40s in % GDP terms. The UK economy just doesn't support high govt spending - we have to inhabit these limits, one way or the other.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
+1
We want people to generate income, so we shouldn't be taxing income more. Instead we should be shifting the tax burden towards wealth. Credit to the LibDems for at least putting this issue on the agenda in the late 2000's, and to Osbourn for at least being prepared to consider it, until his boss vetoed the idea.
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Except for the single form of Capital which manifestly isn't moveable - Land. Don't tax Capital as such - simple institute a wide-ranging Land Value Tax and simultaneously slash Income Tax
Come on, chaps. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that people can have differing but valid opinions despite seeing the same evidence and hearing the same arguments.
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
I fear that SeanT's rants against a poster earlier in the week seem to have spawned a more intolerant tone to the site over the past few days. Don't the moderators ever do anything.
This
The English for "I agree" is "I agree," and why bother to re-post a request for the moderators to do something, after the moderators have done something?
The murky world of an undercover spy/double?/triple? MI5 <-> IRA agent.
"The one stand-out fact, however, has not been in doubt: for over a decade Scappaticci maintained his cover in the IRA by interrogating fellow British agents to the point where they confessed and were then shot."
The suggestion in the BBC article is unconvincing in my view that the IRA wouldn't harm him because they won't admit to there being a spy in their midst. He probably has information on Sinn Fein leaders that they really don't want released and which he has put into escrow somewhere.
Utterly off-topic, but The Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration Britain, by Ian Mortimer, has just come out. Rather modern (latter 17th century) but the two previous books (Medieval and Elizabethan England) were very enjoyable.
I'd rather carry on with reading Pepys' diaries (currently half way through 1662).
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
+1
We want people to generate income, so we shouldn't be taxing income more. Instead we should be shifting the tax burden towards wealth. Credit to the LibDems for at least putting this issue on the agenda in the late 2000's, and to Osbourn for at least being prepared to consider it, until his boss vetoed the idea.
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Except for the single form of Capital which manifestly isn't moveable - Land. Don't tax Capital as such - simple institute a wide-ranging Land Value Tax and simultaneously slash Income Tax
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Am I right?
Perhaps we should put up a similar set of posts of all the rapes and sexual assaults carried out by people who are not immigrants and not from ethnic minorities. Sadly I suspect it would take a hell of a lot more time and effort than the occasional reports from Sam.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Am I right?
Perhaps we should put up a similar set of posts of all the rapes and sexual assaults carried out by people who are not immigrants and not from ethnic minorities. Sadly I suspect it would take a hell of a lot more time and effort than the occasional reports from Sam.
What exactly are you trying to say?
Edit: because you seem to be saying that a hell of a lot more assaults are committed by non-immigrants.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Am I right?
Perhaps we should put up a similar set of posts of all the rapes and sexual assaults carried out by people who are not immigrants and not from ethnic minorities. Sadly I suspect it would take a hell of a lot more time and effort than the occasional reports from Sam.
Do you think so?
The ones I link to are mostly not immigrants and it is religion rather than ethnicity that is to blame
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.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there - absent-mindedly thinking aloud online over breakfastis not a good idea. What I meant was a 30p rate in the upper reaches of the current 20p rate, softened by a later entry into the 40p rate. I've not seriously looked at the thresholds that would make sense - mainly I think we should get away from the idea that nobody can suggest a higher income tax rate, ever.
Ah okay... That proposal would probably end up quite regressive (not that that should be the touchstone of everything). Hurt those paying basic now and help those towards your next cut off point of 40%. Not sure that's what you intended?
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take. By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
+1
We want people to generate income, so we shouldn't be taxing income more. Instead we should be shifting the tax burden towards wealth. Credit to the LibDems for at least putting this issue on the agenda in the late 2000's, and to Osbourn for at least being prepared to consider it, until his boss vetoed the idea.
Problem is, capital is notoriously mobile. Much easier to shift than income, usually; it means the maximum rate of tax you can levy before you start seeing significant flight is much lower than the equivalent for income.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Except for the single form of Capital which manifestly isn't moveable - Land. Don't tax Capital as such - simple institute a wide-ranging Land Value Tax and simultaneously slash Income Tax
Not sure the DofW would be clobbered, his assets are owned by a series of trusts which come under the umbrella of the Grosvenor estate. The estate’s trustees control the property business via Grosvenor Group Limited. The benefits of these trusts is that they don’t form part of his estate and are not technically owned by him for the purpose of taxation. I'm sure he's not the only one who has structured his capitol holdings in such a way for Tax purposes.
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Am I right?
Perhaps we should put up a similar set of posts of all the rapes and sexual assaults carried out by people who are not immigrants and not from ethnic minorities. Sadly I suspect it would take a hell of a lot more time and effort than the occasional reports from Sam.
Do you think so?
The ones I link to are mostly not immigrants and it is religion rather than ethnicity that is to blame
Although I must point out that it wasn't me who linked to this report
Let me guess (not ever watching the video clips you attach) - a pithy, acute analogy confirming the fact that a certain people have a propensity to commit sexual abuse while the establishment looks on doing nothing.
Am I right?
Perhaps we should put up a similar set of posts of all the rapes and sexual assaults carried out by people who are not immigrants and not from ethnic minorities. Sadly I suspect it would take a hell of a lot more time and effort than the occasional reports from Sam.
Do you think so?
The ones I link to are mostly not immigrants and it is religion rather than ethnicity that is to blame
Comments
People holding an alternative view doesn't mean they're horrid or immoral.
That doesn't mean I like Erdogan, or don't criticise Turkey: my view that the Kurds should get a homeland are rather unpopular with the majority of the Turkish population, for instance.
If we're going to have international treaties then they need to have teeth. It doesn't have to be bombing: diplomacy and/or sanctions could be used.
But IMV the few of these treaties we have are worth protecting.
Personally I still think Macron will edge it on round 1 and romp home on round 2.
One of the great tragedies of modern Turkey - perhaps *the* great tragedy - is that the secularist governments proved so incompetent, immoral and corrupt. They gave the Islamists a chance.
It's put a line in the sand. Unlike Obama, Trump has sent a signal about what is and what isn't acceptable. If Assad crosses it again, he can expect more of the same. At some point, Putin may decide to back another horse if Assad's actions are interfering too much with Russia's other ambitions. The crucial point in your post is the 'if' at the start of the second sentence. As with all client regimes, their patron will protect them while it's worth their while - but that's a subjective call.
Also, the strike took out a lot of Syrian hardware. Planes are expensive these days (as are missiles) and can't easily be replaced. Assad can't afford that many more attacks like last week.
But IMV the few of these treaties we have are worth protecting.
So who should apply sanctions? You're still ducking my key question. If 'we' have treaties then 'we' probably ought to enforce them. Who is 'we'?
What you are, perhaps inadvertently, highlighting is that there is no authority above the nation state. It goes to the heart of, for example, Corbyn's lazy view that Russia should have a veto over our foreign policy (because they have a UN veto and he wants all military options only to happen if UN approved). The UN is a chocolate teapot. Nation states have the sovereignty to determine for themselves what is in their national advantage and act accordingly.
See you all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDWgs2cnga0
There's too much aggression, spats, and unpleasantness on PB at the moment.
So can we tone it down now, or more stringent action will be deployed.
When was the last Shia/Sunni conflict before the Eighties?
I don't mind short bannings if the language gets out of hand but I'd rather have the atmosphere of the HoC than the over-polite HoL.
Perhaps SeanT is to PB as the Beast of Bolsover is to the HoC.
An odd notion is the idea that Caesar was a better general than Hannibal.
Income tax + National Insurance + VAT is about 60% of tax take.
By contrast capital taxes - are less than 4% of total.
If Labour want to be serious about inequality and helping working people i would suggest we need to raise a lot more than 4% from capital.
Also how about capping the tax free element on own property transactions - say £500 000 profit
https://youtu.be/STIvNjWobzA
At a stroke that removes a whole host of dodges and dubious practices.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/12/falkland-islands-introduces-full-marriage-equality/
Defending the CWC is worth achieving, IMO. A stitch in time and all that ...
Will a simple bombing achieve that? Hard to tell, probably not. That is really up to Assad at this point.
Does it send the right sort of message? Absolutely!
Will do good? Well, that depends on the follow up. A one-off bombing that is ignored and then not followed up is worse than nothing.
Prior to this use of CW by Assad, and prior to Syria's accession to the CWC, there was a very strong case that the prohibition of use of CW had become customary international law (i.e. law for all, whether you'd signed up to the specific treaties or not). Any failure to respond to repeated use undermines this, with huge consequences not just for CW use, but in the whole field of customary international law.
We want people to generate income, so we shouldn't be taxing income more. Instead we should be shifting the tax burden towards wealth. Credit to the LibDems for at least putting this issue on the agenda in the late 2000's, and to Osbourn for at least being prepared to consider it, until his boss vetoed the idea.
Appeal judge sides with 100 year old airfield, over those who bought the house at the end of the runway 10 years ago and complained about aircraft noise!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405082/Couple-lose-compensation-claim-against-noisy-helicopters.html
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
There's also RCS1000's oft made point that we really need to encourage capital formation (the two are not precisely the same, but are definitely linked) - this would cut strongly against that.
Maybe we should just accept that the UK's economy is taxed highly enough already and higher rates won't yield more money. We should focus on where we spend money (kill DfiD, some quangoes, local govt mega salaries, etc) and be obessive about efficiency and value for money (deep NHS reform, civil service automation, leave the EU, education vouchers, major supply side reform, etc).
Reminds me of the American tourist at Windsor Castle: "Lovely place you've got here, but why did you build it next to Heathrow?"
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering
Both candidates completely lack introspection and any sense of personal accountability.
Given two equally bad candidates, and despite my visceral dislike for Trump the man, I'd rather go with the one who's instincts are pro-business and conservative on defence and foreign-policy issues, than someone who has to pander to the liberal left and is internationalist on defence issues.
Still hoping for an early Trump impeachment though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4404142/Melania-Trump-Apology.html
The murky world of an undercover spy/double?/triple? MI5 <-> IRA agent.
"The one stand-out fact, however, has not been in doubt: for over a decade Scappaticci maintained his cover in the IRA by interrogating fellow British agents to the point where they confessed and were then shot."
As I opined earlier, we are "involved" whether we like it or not through a) the existence of IS-sponsored radical terrorism and b) the Syrian Diaspora which has political, economic and humanitarian consequences in Europe (and beyond).
I suppose it's also worth mentioning that in "drawing" the map of parts of the Middle East after 1918 we drew the borders and created the states that are the focus of conflict now.
I agree inasmuch as it ill behoves us to tell people how to run their lives - western democracies have that tendency and one could argue a patchy record at best. That being said, the Middle East didn't ask to be a cockpit in the new Cold War and what has disappointed me so much about Trump/Tillerson but not Johnson (from whom I expected nothing and haven't been disappointed) is how easily the Cold War rhetoric has been invoked.
Russia isn't a evil monster determined by subterfuge and intrigue to conquer the West - the national humiliation of the fall of Communism has been replaced by a new assertive nationalism (sound familiar ?) but they lack the means to be more than a nuisance. However, instead of treating them as a nuisance let's treat them as a serious player.
Instead of trying to humiliate Russia in Assad let's offer them the chance to disengage from Assad and be an integral part in the creation of a new Syrian state.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1322492/Penguins-gay-flings-mate-life-heterosexual-couple.html
Well, not really. The Dartford Crossing has improved immensely since they took out the toll booths but the bridge works much better than the old tunnels. A proposal to build a second bridge wasn't the worst thing I had ever heard.
The amount of traffic that flows from the M25 to the M2 via Dartford and vice versa isn't insubstantial but isn't that much in my experience. If the route linked down to the M20 it would help a bit more but the bulk of the Dartford Crossing traffic is traffic going round the M25 and that wouldn't change with the new proposal.
Giving it some thought I'm inclining to Option A which would massively improve the traffic flow going anticlockwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
The only route to 'deep NHS reform', meaning to me longer lifespan, especially more years in perfect health, while spending less than £120 bn per year, is to address the non-medical causes of ill-health. Including bad diets, cold damp housing, lifestyles and maybe stress (e.g. the current changes to benefits are causing great stress). I can't see a low-tax society being of much help there.
The 27 men are accused of committing historic sex and trafficking offences against 18 girls aged between 11 and 17 between 2004 and 2011.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405262/27-men-2-women-court-child-sex-neglect-case.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Testcard_F.jpg
Maybe there will be a CAPITAL tax.
whitesskegness angry....https://order-order.com/2017/04/12/new-europeans-secret-plan-stir-controversy-sneering-front-page-targeting-skegness/
Ifop-Fiducial
Le Pen 23.5%
Macron 22.5%
Fillon 19.0%
Mélenchon 18.5%
Am I right?
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_12-04-2017.pdf
Edit: because you seem to be saying that a hell of a lot more assaults are committed by non-immigrants.
The ones I link to are mostly not immigrants and it is religion rather than ethnicity that is to blame