Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
If it was me, I would invest massively in infrastructure, specifically full FTTP to every home.
Maybe a UK Sovereign Investment Fund should buy a stake in SpaceX (I know it isn’t public but that’s not a complete bar). Starlink perhaps is a better long term proposition than FTTP - especially with rural properties.
FTTP is one of the best investments we can make and will be the cheapest it's been for a long time.
Do it once, never have to do it again. 1 Gb will be fine for a decade and it will scale to 10 Gb quite easily.
From a consumer point of view, I have FTTP and its not better than my previous experience with copper, unless I want to pay hundreds of pounds a month.
I appreciate that from an investment point of view it is worth it, but it’s a long term political investment, something the current government is not in to.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
If it was me, I would invest massively in infrastructure, specifically full FTTP to every home.
Maybe a UK Sovereign Investment Fund should buy a stake in SpaceX (I know it isn’t public but that’s not a complete bar). Starlink perhaps is a better long term proposition than FTTP - especially with rural properties.
Starlink has the potential to be a complete game-changer for rural internet. They’re taking requests now for beta testers, will probably start testing in UK next year after US and Canada trials this winter.
If it was me, I would invest massively in infrastructure, specifically full FTTP to every home.
Maybe a UK Sovereign Investment Fund should buy a stake in SpaceX (I know it isn’t public but that’s not a complete bar). Starlink perhaps is a better long term proposition than FTTP - especially with rural properties.
FTTP is one of the best investments we can make and will be the cheapest it's been for a long time.
Do it once, never have to do it again. 1 Gb will be fine for a decade and it will scale to 10 Gb quite easily.
From a consumer point of view, I have FTTP and its not better than my previous experience with copper, unless I want to pay hundreds of pounds a month.
I appreciate that from an investment point of view it is worth it, but it’s a long term political investment, something the current government is not in to.
FTTP is objectively better than copper in every conceivable way, even if you don't notice the difference.
It is a long term investment - but it's also the best time to do it when the state can borrow so cheaply.
Broadband + housing. Of course the latter the Tories won't solve because a drop in house prices impacts their voters.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
It will make people happier, a measure that cannot be understated in terms of confidence in the economy I think.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
Is there a problem in the building industry? My impression was that builders have been working through the crisis.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
It will make people happier, a measure that cannot be understated in terms of confidence in the economy I think.
£1 a pint isn't going to make people happier.
I get it's an example of a wider impact that you're alluding to - but I am not convinced a few tax cuts will reverse the economic hole we're in.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
My son in law has commissioned an extension and the architect told him if he appoints a builder to just do the basic structure (circa £30,000) it will be vat free
He can then arrange individual contractors for internals, electricians and plumbers himself
They all said that the absence of black leaders at a very senior level in British organisations in a problem. They need to see some people like them at that level to show it's possible to everyone else. They also stressed the importance of mentoring and coaching. Two said they thought the UK was a bit obsessed at present with gender equality at corporate level, which was "squeezing out" attention from black role models and representation at that level.
None of them mentioned statues. When I asked one of them directly about she said that the 'past is the past' and 'it is what it is' but there might be a handful, like Christopher Columbus for example who didn't 'discover' America that are insensitive and need better qualification or possibly re-locating if it really sticks in the throat. However, this wasn't her priority: she's more interested in the future.
All seemed delighted I'd asked them about this and said they wanted to meet up for drinks and a chat socially soon, and really appreciated I'd listened to them.
It was they who convinced me I was correct to write this article in the way I did, and I'm pleased I spoke to them first before I did.
In the Eighties, I was working in psychiatry, on a youth unit in South London. The diagnosis was usually Conduct disorder, often overlaid with drug and alcohol abuse, criminal contacts, abnormal sexual behaviour etc, basically what was previously known as Juvenile delinquency. An interesting bunch, and many were black or mixed heritage.
I presented my worked up interview to the chief psychiatrist on one young black teenage prostitute. Generally he found my presentation thorough, but he faulted me for not asking her about her experience of racism. I had attempted to be colour blind. For the next ward round I did enquire of this, and quite an eye opener it was to a whitle middle class lad. It put a very different perspective on many of the events in her turbulent life.
The lesson is that even people you think you know well will rarely raise these things spontaneously, only if something egregious happens. Following this I always asked. This is the origin of the much misused term Woke. I was awakened to racial injustice and how it impacted on so many aspects of life for others. Things that had passed me by before.
I gained a lot from the attachment, and am much more comfortable discussing these issues, and correcting my own predjudices. We do not always find what we expect, and peoples responses differ, so Priti Patel has come to terms of her experiences in a contrasting way to Ash Sharkar, but that is all part of the rich tapestry of life. Seek and ye shall find.
Isn't that what I've done? I've been speaking to people of a different background to mine to find out about their experiences.
Where I differ from you is that "woke" carries certain connotations with it that including an obsession with policing language, denouncing unorthodox perspectives and publicly signalling your credentials. It's a narcissistic and somewhat unpleasant creed that is fuelled on dogma, with a dash of socialist injustice injected into it.
I prefer liberalism and open-mindedness. And I will always be patriotic and pro-freedom and look to influence others with my views, and vice versa, too.
Sorry.
Yes, you are Woke, in its original meaning. The pejorative terms that you embellish it with are your own interpretation. Being awake to realising that as a white male your experiences are different to people of colour.
What you do with this insight is up to you. Some go down the rabbit hole you despise, others react against it, arguing like Priti Patel that they have made it despite racism and sexism, so others can too. The insight is separate to the political interpretation.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
My son in law has commissioned an extension and the architect told him if he appoints a builder to just do the basic structure (circa £30,000) it will be vat free
He can then arrange individual contractors for internals, electricians and plumbers himself
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
It is important for people not to overreact to such situations. However, as a society I do think we have a tendency to wish to avoid and fear an overreaction so much we seek to prevent any actual reaction, which may be justified or necessary. That's something I and recent protestors would probably agree on, despite disagreements on other things.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
There are multi-bashing opportunities here.
Asylum seekers, Muslims, Home Office incompetence, Cameron and his warmongering.
An actual question to ask - has the resistance in some quarters to regulation of "preachers" in prisons been dealt with? And no, not what you might think - the Foreign Office was "very concerned" by proposals in the past....
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Biden vs Trump in 2016, would surely have seen Biden walk it. It's because they chose Hilary that they lost. She was terrible but to this day, I maintain she'd have been better than Trump. She'd have achieved nothing, which would have been better than Trump.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
My son in law has commissioned an extension and the architect told him if he appoints a builder to just do the basic structure (circa £30,000) it will be vat free
He can then arrange individual contractors for internals, electricians and plumbers himself
I don't understand this at all.
New homes have VAT at 0%. Subdivision works which create two homes out of one can be at 5%. Other construction work should be standard rated (20%) unless it relates to e.g. energy efficiency (at 5%).
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
£6 A pint? No wonder pubs are closing.
Either Sandpit has been too long in Dubai or he drinks pints of wine.
Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
I can see the logic of Employer NI though. In America for example an employer will pay for health insurance. In Britain, they pay for the NHS indirectly though Employer NI.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
It is important for people not to overreact to such situations. However, as a society I do think we have a tendency to wish to avoid and fear an overreaction so much we seek to prevent any actual reaction, which may be justified or necessary. That's something I and recent protestors would probably agree on, despite disagreements on other things.
Rotherham is a case in point - the reasoning behind the coverup was the fear of what what happen. People inside the system were forecasting outright racial warfare, lynchings, pogroms etc....
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
£6 A pint? No wonder pubs are closing.
Either Sandpit has been too long in Dubai or he drinks pints of wine.
LOL, a pint in Dubai is £10, the £6 pint is what we call happy hour!
Maybe when I was back in the UK last, I only ended up in the posh pubs with the missus. That, and £6 is a useful baseline for the illustrative maths of a 20% tax
Reducing to 1m I think is a mistake. Because at that point people will stop distancing altogether.
We're going to have a second wave due to this Government's incompetence. They obviously assume Coronavirus has now disappeared and the economic agenda will restart. I think that is laughable.
The reality is, that the flipped red wall seats with Tiny majorities will flip back because Starmer isn't Corbyn. If Ed held those, Starmer can win them back.
I need to review the target list again but if Starmer can equal the Tories on voteshare, he'll probably become PM.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
It is important for people not to overreact to such situations. However, as a society I do think we have a tendency to wish to avoid and fear an overreaction so much we seek to prevent any actual reaction, which may be justified or necessary. That's something I and recent protestors would probably agree on, despite disagreements on other things.
Rotherham is a case in point - the reasoning behind the coverup was the fear of what what happen. People inside the system were forecasting outright racial warfare, lynchings, pogroms etc....
And the people inside the system behind the coverup have still not had action taken against them.
The 'investigation' into the role of the South Yorkshire plods is still ongoing after nearly six years.
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Biden vs Trump in 2016, would surely have seen Biden walk it. It's because they chose Hilary that they lost. She was terrible but to this day, I maintain she'd have been better than Trump. She'd have achieved nothing, which would have been better than Trump.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
I was agreeing with you.
The problem with Hilary Clinton - and it is an insoluble problem - is she thought she should be President because she was a woman. Now without disagreeing that there is something rather wrong with a nation that eliminates 51% of its population from consideration for high office on the basis that they have vaginas, you need a lot more than that to win the Presidency.
Ultimately, when she was given political power she wasn’t very good at it. She messed up healthcare reform in the 1990s, failing to cut a deal that would have made vast improvements on the grounds that it wasn’t perfect. As Secretary of State she was deeply unimpressive, even before we consider the email farrago.
And yet in 2016 she claimed it was her time, time for a woman and implied any opponents were just being sexist.
In 2008 New Labour journalist Pauli Linford confidently predicted that any election where Clinton was the nominee was the Republicans’ to lose. He was right, even though that election should have been unloseable for the Dems.
My worry now is that Biden is four years too late.
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Biden vs Trump in 2016, would surely have seen Biden walk it. It's because they chose Hilary that they lost. She was terrible but to this day, I maintain she'd have been better than Trump. She'd have achieved nothing, which would have been better than Trump.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
I was agreeing with you.
The problem with Hilary Clinton - and it is an insoluble problem - is she thought she should be President because she was a woman. Now without disagreeing that there is something rather wrong with a nation that eliminates 51% of its population from consideration for high office on the basis that they have vaginas, you need a lot more than that to win the Presidency.
Ultimately, when she was given political power she wasn’t very good at it. She messed up healthcare reform in the 1990s, failing to cut a deal that would have made vast improvements on the grounds that it wasn’t perfect. As Secretary of State she was deeply unimpressive, even before we consider the email farrago.
And yet in 2016 she claimed it was her time, time for a woman and implied any opponents were just being sexist.
In 2008 New Labour journalist Pauli Linford confidently predicted that any election where Clinton was the nominee was the Republicans’ to lose. He was right, even though that election should have been unloseable for the Dems.
My worry now is that Biden is four years too late.
I didn't think you were disagreeing, I was adding context. Sorry for any confusion.
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
I agree largely with what your saying, but to be pedantic I don't think Salmond's statement was really framed as a personal promise, or not over and above the standard 'we'll definitely have a world beating app' politicians' bs.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
My son in law has commissioned an extension and the architect told him if he appoints a builder to just do the basic structure (circa £30,000) it will be vat free
He can then arrange individual contractors for internals, electricians and plumbers himself
I don't understand this at all.
New homes have VAT at 0%. Subdivision works which create two homes out of one can be at 5%. Other construction work should be standard rated (20%) unless it relates to e.g. energy efficiency (at 5%).
Unless it's a specific builder without the turnover to be registered.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
It is important for people not to overreact to such situations. However, as a society I do think we have a tendency to wish to avoid and fear an overreaction so much we seek to prevent any actual reaction, which may be justified or necessary. That's something I and recent protestors would probably agree on, despite disagreements on other things.
Rotherham is a case in point - the reasoning behind the coverup was the fear of what what happen. People inside the system were forecasting outright racial warfare, lynchings, pogroms etc....
And the people inside the system behind the coverup have still not had action taken against them.
The 'investigation' into the role of the South Yorkshire plods is still ongoing after nearly six years.
Which is why I smile when I think of my suggestion to Pritti Patel on the matter. And the reaction of the permanent official standing next to her....
OT Japan has its coronavirus tracking app out, on the minimal-data-collection Google/Apple model.
I was wondering how a Japanese ministry managed to pull off something that you could just download and run from the app store without needing carbon paper and faxes and it turns out it was just an open-source project, so the relevant ministry didn't have to develop anything at all. It was set up by a tech evangelist at Microsoft Japan who is quite well connected, and they just built it and talked the ministry into putting their logo on it.
If you think this ghoulish rubbish is going to win you an election, you've got another thing coming.
but I think Boris will be replaced if he doesn't pull his finger out. The C of E looks v impressive as a communicator. No idea if he's good at being C of E as Covid got in the way, which obscures a multitude of sins...
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
'It appears the attack was stopped when a lone sergeant, who responded when the alarm was raised, ran to the scene, saw the attacker running away with a knife and rugby tackled him to the ground.'
This must be more of that unconscionable police brutality we've heard so much about. Let's give free rein to the people spraying 'ACAB' on the Cenotaph, shall we?
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Biden vs Trump in 2016, would surely have seen Biden walk it. It's because they chose Hilary that they lost. She was terrible but to this day, I maintain she'd have been better than Trump. She'd have achieved nothing, which would have been better than Trump.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
I was agreeing with you.
The problem with Hilary Clinton - and it is an insoluble problem - is she thought she should be President because she was a woman. Now without disagreeing that there is something rather wrong with a nation that eliminates 51% of its population from consideration for high office on the basis that they have vaginas, you need a lot more than that to win the Presidency.
Ultimately, when she was given political power she wasn’t very good at it. She messed up healthcare reform in the 1990s, failing to cut a deal that would have made vast improvements on the grounds that it wasn’t perfect. As Secretary of State she was deeply unimpressive, even before we consider the email farrago.
And yet in 2016 she claimed it was her time, time for a woman and implied any opponents were just being sexist.
In 2008 New Labour journalist Pauli Linford confidently predicted that any election where Clinton was the nominee was the Republicans’ to lose. He was right, even though that election should have been unloseable for the Dems.
My worry now is that Biden is four years too late.
I didn't think you were disagreeing, I was adding context. Sorry for any confusion.
No worries. Wasn’t quite sure and I wanted to clear up any confusion.
'It appears the attack was stopped when a lone sergeant, who responded when the alarm was raised, ran to the scene, saw the attacker running away with a knife and rugby tackled him to the ground.'
This must be more of that unconscionable police brutality we've heard so much about. Let's give free rein to the people spraying 'ACAB' on the Cenotaph, shall we?
The reality is, that the flipped red wall seats with Tiny majorities will flip back because Starmer isn't Corbyn. If Ed held those, Starmer can win them back.
I need to review the target list again but if Starmer can equal the Tories on voteshare, he'll probably become PM.
Says the person who predicted a hung parliament in December 2019. Ho-hum
'It appears the attack was stopped when a lone sergeant, who responded when the alarm was raised, ran to the scene, saw the attacker running away with a knife and rugby tackled him to the ground.'
This must be more of that unconscionable police brutality we've heard so much about. Let's give free rein to the people spraying 'ACAB' on the Cenotaph, shall we?
Irrelevant straw man as usual from you
Totally relevant. The far-left demonization of the police is as dangerous as it is stupid, and it's about time it came to an end.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
@BluestBlue you cannot seperate race from power and wealth. No matter how meritocratic we make our society, and how easy it becomes for a non white person to work hard and secure an upper-middle-class career, its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.
There is no easy solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
'its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.'
I have literally no idea what this means. I have personal experience of first- and second-generation immigrants who have scaled the economic, educational, social, and professional heights of Britain, reaching levels that many of the 'white hands' you mention haven't grasped in the past 1000 years.
This is a state of affairs of which both those 'new Britons' and the old ones should be immensely proud.
What are you talking about? I’m not saying that immigrants cannot scale economic, educational, social, and professional heights. I’m saying that as a whole, it’s impossible to catch up with accumulated wealth. Just look at South Africa for god sake. White South Africans still are, on the whole, the richest.
To deny such a fact is just willful ignorance.
I'm not a socialist - I don't view absolute equality of outcome for every social group as a good, whether a family has been here for a thousand years or for five.
Your idea implies that we would need to bring the material and 'power' assets of the entire population to a level of equality, which is frankly bonkers. Much better to create a free society in which the industrious and talented rise and the rest dip, from generation to generation. That's all that can or should be done.
Talent is an accident of birth. Why should the talented but lazy be rewarded more highly than those who work hard but don't have as much talent?
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond.
It was in the SNP government's white paper, not once but twice:
Page 3: A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path
Page 10: a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Biden vs Trump in 2016, would surely have seen Biden walk it. It's because they chose Hilary that they lost. She was terrible but to this day, I maintain she'd have been better than Trump. She'd have achieved nothing, which would have been better than Trump.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
I was agreeing with you.
The problem with Hilary Clinton - and it is an insoluble problem - is she thought she should be President because she was a woman. Now without disagreeing that there is something rather wrong with a nation that eliminates 51% of its population from consideration for high office on the basis that they have vaginas, you need a lot more than that to win the Presidency.
Ultimately, when she was given political power she wasn’t very good at it. She messed up healthcare reform in the 1990s, failing to cut a deal that would have made vast improvements on the grounds that it wasn’t perfect. As Secretary of State she was deeply unimpressive, even before we consider the email farrago.
And yet in 2016 she claimed it was her time, time for a woman and implied any opponents were just being sexist.
In 2008 New Labour journalist Pauli Linford confidently predicted that any election where Clinton was the nominee was the Republicans’ to lose. He was right, even though that election should have been unloseable for the Dems.
My worry now is that Biden is four years too late.
Yes - Hillary simply isn't good at elective politics.
When she was parachuted into the Senate seat, she hacked off everyone in the local party by replacing long standing, effective people with people from her "in group". Who needed bigger salaries....
The holiday in the middle of the campaign, the speeches to Goldman Sachs, blowing off the teachers unions multiple times... No wonder Bill Clinton was pounding the upholstery in his limo....
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
My son in law has commissioned an extension and the architect told him if he appoints a builder to just do the basic structure (circa £30,000) it will be vat free
He can then arrange individual contractors for internals, electricians and plumbers himself
I don't understand this at all.
New homes have VAT at 0%. Subdivision works which create two homes out of one can be at 5%. Other construction work should be standard rated (20%) unless it relates to e.g. energy efficiency (at 5%).
Unless it's a specific builder without the turnover to be registered.
it's a possibility.
Given the registration threshold is £85k and this piece of work is £30k... is he the least experienced builder on the block? Not sure I'd want him building my home extension...
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
I can see the logic of Employer NI though. In America for example an employer will pay for health insurance. In Britain, they pay for the NHS indirectly though Employer NI.
Indeed so, but if the economy is on the floor the government needs to remove as many obstacles as possible to employing people. I'd cut it in half for the next year or two, and remove it completely for the most affected industries.
The reality is, that the flipped red wall seats with Tiny majorities will flip back because Starmer isn't Corbyn. If Ed held those, Starmer can win them back.
I need to review the target list again but if Starmer can equal the Tories on voteshare, he'll probably become PM.
Says the person who predicted a hung parliament in December 2019. Ho-hum
Mary Mary quite contrary, how does your garden grow?
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Biden vs Trump in 2016, would surely have seen Biden walk it. It's because they chose Hilary that they lost. She was terrible but to this day, I maintain she'd have been better than Trump. She'd have achieved nothing, which would have been better than Trump.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
I was agreeing with you.
The problem with Hilary Clinton - and it is an insoluble problem - is she thought she should be President because she was a woman. Now without disagreeing that there is something rather wrong with a nation that eliminates 51% of its population from consideration for high office on the basis that they have vaginas, you need a lot more than that to win the Presidency.
Ultimately, when she was given political power she wasn’t very good at it. She messed up healthcare reform in the 1990s, failing to cut a deal that would have made vast improvements on the grounds that it wasn’t perfect. As Secretary of State she was deeply unimpressive, even before we consider the email farrago.
And yet in 2016 she claimed it was her time, time for a woman and implied any opponents were just being sexist.
In 2008 New Labour journalist Pauli Linford confidently predicted that any election where Clinton was the nominee was the Republicans’ to lose. He was right, even though that election should have been unloseable for the Dems.
My worry now is that Biden is four years too late.
Yes - Hillary simply isn't good at elective politics.
When she was parachuted into the Senate seat, she hacked off everyone in the local party by replacing long standing, effective people with people from her "in group". Who needed bigger salaries....
The holiday in the middle of the campaign, the speeches to Goldman Sachs, blowing off the teachers unions multiple times... No wonder Bill Clinton was pounding the upholstery in his limo....
As least it wasn't the intern being pounded in his limo.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Probably the guy during the referendum? When was his religious background ever brought up? When did that become an attack on all Christians as this will inevitably become about Muslims?
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
@BluestBlue you cannot seperate race from power and wealth. No matter how meritocratic we make our society, and how easy it becomes for a non white person to work hard and secure an upper-middle-class career, its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.
There is no easy solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
'its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.'
I have literally no idea what this means. I have personal experience of first- and second-generation immigrants who have scaled the economic, educational, social, and professional heights of Britain, reaching levels that many of the 'white hands' you mention haven't grasped in the past 1000 years.
This is a state of affairs of which both those 'new Britons' and the old ones should be immensely proud.
What are you talking about? I’m not saying that immigrants cannot scale economic, educational, social, and professional heights. I’m saying that as a whole, it’s impossible to catch up with accumulated wealth. Just look at South Africa for god sake. White South Africans still are, on the whole, the richest.
To deny such a fact is just willful ignorance.
I'm not a socialist - I don't view absolute equality of outcome for every social group as a good, whether a family has been here for a thousand years or for five.
Your idea implies that we would need to bring the material and 'power' assets of the entire population to a level of equality, which is frankly bonkers. Much better to create a free society in which the industrious and talented rise and the rest dip, from generation to generation. That's all that can or should be done.
Talent is an accident of birth. Why should the talented but lazy be rewarded more highly than those who work hard but don't have as much talent?
The problem comes when you have those with neither talent nor energy rising to the top through accident of birth...
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
@BluestBlue you cannot seperate race from power and wealth. No matter how meritocratic we make our society, and how easy it becomes for a non white person to work hard and secure an upper-middle-class career, its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.
There is no easy solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
'its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.'
I have literally no idea what this means. I have personal experience of first- and second-generation immigrants who have scaled the economic, educational, social, and professional heights of Britain, reaching levels that many of the 'white hands' you mention haven't grasped in the past 1000 years.
This is a state of affairs of which both those 'new Britons' and the old ones should be immensely proud.
What are you talking about? I’m not saying that immigrants cannot scale economic, educational, social, and professional heights. I’m saying that as a whole, it’s impossible to catch up with accumulated wealth. Just look at South Africa for god sake. White South Africans still are, on the whole, the richest.
To deny such a fact is just willful ignorance.
I'm not a socialist - I don't view absolute equality of outcome for every social group as a good, whether a family has been here for a thousand years or for five.
Your idea implies that we would need to bring the material and 'power' assets of the entire population to a level of equality, which is frankly bonkers. Much better to create a free society in which the industrious and talented rise and the rest dip, from generation to generation. That's all that can or should be done.
Talent is an accident of birth. Why should the talented but lazy be rewarded more highly than those who work hard but don't have as much talent?
It can be very hard to tell the difference. I make my job look easy. It isn't. I only make it look easy because I've worked really hard over the last few years to learn it inside out.
To this day, I cannot see how anyone could vote for this guy.
Cult.
Well, in 2016 there was a rather disappointing choice. On the one side, a person who had tried for years to win the nomination, who was associated with lots of dubious property dealings, had a troubled marital history, came from the north east, yet claimed to be on the side of the ordinary people, and who in addition to having limited political skills looked doddery and past it.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Biden vs Trump in 2016, would surely have seen Biden walk it. It's because they chose Hilary that they lost. She was terrible but to this day, I maintain she'd have been better than Trump. She'd have achieved nothing, which would have been better than Trump.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
I was agreeing with you.
The problem with Hilary Clinton - and it is an insoluble problem - is she thought she should be President because she was a woman. Now without disagreeing that there is something rather wrong with a nation that eliminates 51% of its population from consideration for high office on the basis that they have vaginas, you need a lot more than that to win the Presidency.
Ultimately, when she was given political power she wasn’t very good at it. She messed up healthcare reform in the 1990s, failing to cut a deal that would have made vast improvements on the grounds that it wasn’t perfect. As Secretary of State she was deeply unimpressive, even before we consider the email farrago.
And yet in 2016 she claimed it was her time, time for a woman and implied any opponents were just being sexist.
In 2008 New Labour journalist Pauli Linford confidently predicted that any election where Clinton was the nominee was the Republicans’ to lose. He was right, even though that election should have been unloseable for the Dems.
My worry now is that Biden is four years too late.
Yes - Hillary simply isn't good at elective politics.
When she was parachuted into the Senate seat, she hacked off everyone in the local party by replacing long standing, effective people with people from her "in group". Who needed bigger salaries....
The holiday in the middle of the campaign, the speeches to Goldman Sachs, blowing off the teachers unions multiple times... No wonder Bill Clinton was pounding the upholstery in his limo....
As least it wasn't the intern being pounded in his limo.
I thought he banged interns rather than pounded them?
@BluestBlue you cannot seperate race from power and wealth. No matter how meritocratic we make our society, and how easy it becomes for a non white person to work hard and secure an upper-middle-class career, its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.
There is no easy solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
'its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.'
I have literally no idea what this means. I have personal experience of first- and second-generation immigrants who have scaled the economic, educational, social, and professional heights of Britain, reaching levels that many of the 'white hands' you mention haven't grasped in the past 1000 years.
This is a state of affairs of which both those 'new Britons' and the old ones should be immensely proud.
What are you talking about? I’m not saying that immigrants cannot scale economic, educational, social, and professional heights. I’m saying that as a whole, it’s impossible to catch up with accumulated wealth. Just look at South Africa for god sake. White South Africans still are, on the whole, the richest.
To deny such a fact is just willful ignorance.
I'm not a socialist - I don't view absolute equality of outcome for every social group as a good, whether a family has been here for a thousand years or for five.
Your idea implies that we would need to bring the material and 'power' assets of the entire population to a level of equality, which is frankly bonkers. Much better to create a free society in which the industrious and talented rise and the rest dip, from generation to generation. That's all that can or should be done.
Talent is an accident of birth. Why should the talented but lazy be rewarded more highly than those who work hard but don't have as much talent?
The problem comes when you have those with neither talent nor energy rising to the top through accident of birth...
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It's a saving to the employer, to encourage job creation. A cut in employee NI would give the savings to those with jobs, at a cost of higher unemployment.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
In general, terrorists are labelled according to their self declared justification -
- PIRA - "Republican Terrorists" - UVF - "Loyalist Terrorists", or "Protestant Paramilitaries". The latter because they are very often specifically anti-catholic. While anti-protestant violence (Kingsmill) wasn't unknown form the IRA, the PIRA claims to be following in the One Ireland views of 1798 etc. - Thomas Mair - "Far Right Terrorist"
If someone kills people while banging on about Alan's Snackbar, they will be taken at their word.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
It will make people happier, a measure that cannot be understated in terms of confidence in the economy I think.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Probably the guy during the referendum? When was his religious background ever brought up? When did that become an attack on all Christians as this will inevitably become about Muslims?
I guess so, although that guy did not kill a muslim. He killed a member of his own community that he hated, but you have a good point.
Actually I don;t think this will rebound on the British muslim community, as at first sight this guy is not even a British muslim. The British muslim community's record on this in recent times is good.
The attention will probably be on why he is here in the first place, why he hasn;t been deported blah blah blah.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Reducing to 1m I think is a mistake. Because at that point people will stop distancing altogether.
We're going to have a second wave due to this Government's incompetence. They obviously assume Coronavirus has now disappeared and the economic agenda will restart. I think that is laughable.
People are already ignoring it.
Yes, it’s been widely ignored down here for several weeks now.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Probably the guy during the referendum? When was his religious background ever brought up? When did that become an attack on all Christians as this will inevitably become about Muslims?
As far as I know Thomas Mair was not a Christian. I’m willing to be corrected on that if anyone knows differently.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
Another very important thing. I was reflecting on how my career has been boosted by my network.
Much of this resulted from working with people more senior than me and then getting to know them socially and personally better after hours, so we really bonded. When you then reach out for help later they then go out of their way to help you.
Men should socialise far more with women outside the office (still a bit of raised eyebrows goes on about that, with people assuming they must be shagging) and also from different backgrounds.
So you can actually make a difference just by going to the pub with a range of BAME people at work, buying them a drink, having a laugh and getting to know them.
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond.
It was in the SNP government's white paper, not once but twice:
Page 3: A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path
Page 10: a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.
That's not a promise but a warning; such chances as this will come often. Take it now.
That the chance might come again (almost) 10 years later doesn't invalidate the warning. Rather, it emphasises it.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Probably the guy during the referendum? When was his religious background ever brought up? When did that become an attack on all Christians as this will inevitably become about Muslims?
I guess so, although that guy did not kill a muslim. He killed a member of his own community that he hated, but you have a good point.
Actually I don;t think this will rebound on the British muslim community, as at first sight this guy is not even a British muslim. The British muslim community's record on this in recent times is good.
The attention will probably be on why he is here in the first place, why he hasn;t been deported blah blah blah.
Now in that context, I don't have an issue with the discussion because that's about him as an individual.
Beyond speculating, he deserves to be locked up for murder, deported if necessary. I have no qualms about that.
And you're spot on, the British Muslim community are always rapid to call out these incidents because if they don't, they immediately are told they're condoning it. It's odd the CoE or any other religious organisation doesn't have to apologise for incidents around the world done in their respective names.
Reducing to 1m I think is a mistake. Because at that point people will stop distancing altogether.
We're going to have a second wave due to this Government's incompetence. They obviously assume Coronavirus has now disappeared and the economic agenda will restart. I think that is laughable.
People are already ignoring it.
Yes, it’s been widely ignored down here for several weeks now.
And it’s made no difference.
Why?
Because there's a limit to how long a government can house-arrest the population of a liberal democracy?
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
I agree largely with what your saying, but to be pedantic I don't think Salmond's statement was really framed as a personal promise, or not over and above the standard 'we'll definitely have a world beating app' politicians' bs.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
It was a promise both Nats and Unionists promised to respect in 2014 and most importantly respecting that promise was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2019 the Tories won a majority of 80 to deliver.
As there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent there will therefore be no indyref2 for the rest of this parliament
@BluestBlue you cannot seperate race from power and wealth. No matter how meritocratic we make our society, and how easy it becomes for a non white person to work hard and secure an upper-middle-class career, its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.
There is no easy solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
'its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.'
I have literally no idea what this means. I have personal experience of first- and second-generation immigrants who have scaled the economic, educational, social, and professional heights of Britain, reaching levels that many of the 'white hands' you mention haven't grasped in the past 1000 years.
This is a state of affairs of which both those 'new Britons' and the old ones should be immensely proud.
What are you talking about? I’m not saying that immigrants cannot scale economic, educational, social, and professional heights. I’m saying that as a whole, it’s impossible to catch up with accumulated wealth. Just look at South Africa for god sake. White South Africans still are, on the whole, the richest.
To deny such a fact is just willful ignorance.
I'm not a socialist - I don't view absolute equality of outcome for every social group as a good, whether a family has been here for a thousand years or for five.
Your idea implies that we would need to bring the material and 'power' assets of the entire population to a level of equality, which is frankly bonkers. Much better to create a free society in which the industrious and talented rise and the rest dip, from generation to generation. That's all that can or should be done.
Talent is an accident of birth. Why should the talented but lazy be rewarded more highly than those who work hard but don't have as much talent?
The problem comes when you have those with neither talent nor energy rising to the top through accident of birth...
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Probably the guy during the referendum? When was his religious background ever brought up? When did that become an attack on all Christians as this will inevitably become about Muslims?
As far as I know Thomas Mair was not a Christian. I’m willing to be corrected on that if anyone knows differently.
Mair was a professed far-right racist. As far as I know, he never talked or write about his actions in any other context than hard core racism, not religion.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Usman Khan, born in Stoke.
LOL - a very good point.
By the way, does anyone find it interesting that no one has found out who it was who OK'd the variance of his bail conditions to allow him to come to London?
Comments
There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
I appreciate that from an investment point of view it is worth it, but it’s a long term political investment, something the current government is not in to.
It is a long term investment - but it's also the best time to do it when the state can borrow so cheaply.
Broadband + housing. Of course the latter the Tories won't solve because a drop in house prices impacts their voters.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
I get it's an example of a wider impact that you're alluding to - but I am not convinced a few tax cuts will reverse the economic hole we're in.
He can then arrange individual contractors for internals, electricians and plumbers himself
What you do with this insight is up to you. Some go down the rabbit hole you despise, others react against it, arguing like Priti Patel that they have made it despite racism and sexism, so others can too. The insight is separate to the political interpretation.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1274649961171427333
Asylum seekers, Muslims, Home Office incompetence, Cameron and his warmongering.
Or Donald Trump.
And they made the wrong choice.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
What was the justification? It does not ring true to me.
Unless the builder turns over less than approx 85k a year, and the rest would push him over the exemption limit.
Which is fine and the system operating as intended. But nothing to do with it being building.
But on the infrastructure subject, is anyone else disturbed to find Iain Duncan Smith is the one talking sense?
What rabbit hole have we disappeared down where he has become the voice of reason?
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
No wonder pubs are closing.
I don't think Biden is as useless as some are saying, it's Sanders who did an appalling job this time around. I thought Harris would have walked it if she'd been the nominee.
New homes have VAT at 0%. Subdivision works which create two homes out of one can be at 5%. Other construction work should be standard rated (20%) unless it relates to e.g. energy efficiency (at 5%).
Anyway, domestic duties beckon.
Later peeps!!
According to this poll for instance 59% of English voters back an English Parliament, only 11% opposed
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763698/You-say-YES-English-votes-English-laws-MoS-poll-shows-fury-handouts-Scots.html
Maybe when I was back in the UK last, I only ended up in the posh pubs with the missus. That, and £6 is a useful baseline for the illustrative maths of a 20% tax
I need to review the target list again but if Starmer can equal the Tories on voteshare, he'll probably become PM.
The 'investigation' into the role of the South Yorkshire plods is still ongoing after nearly six years.
The problem with Hilary Clinton - and it is an insoluble problem - is she thought she should be President because she was a woman. Now without disagreeing that there is something rather wrong with a nation that eliminates 51% of its population from consideration for high office on the basis that they have vaginas, you need a lot more than that to win the Presidency.
Ultimately, when she was given political power she wasn’t very good at it. She messed up healthcare reform in the 1990s, failing to cut a deal that would have made vast improvements on the grounds that it wasn’t perfect. As Secretary of State she was deeply unimpressive, even before we consider the email farrago.
And yet in 2016 she claimed it was her time, time for a woman and implied any opponents were just being sexist.
In 2008 New Labour journalist Pauli Linford confidently predicted that any election where Clinton was the nominee was the Republicans’ to lose. He was right, even though that election should have been unloseable for the Dems.
My worry now is that Biden is four years too late.
And he wasn't even in this country.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
Many of its articles were very sympathetic still to Labour overall.
Janan Ganesh with his rather scathing assessment of the intellectual capabilities of Corbyn’s team, may have been a factor.
I was wondering how a Japanese ministry managed to pull off something that you could just download and run from the app store without needing carbon paper and faxes and it turns out it was just an open-source project, so the relevant ministry didn't have to develop anything at all. It was set up by a tech evangelist at Microsoft Japan who is quite well connected, and they just built it and talked the ministry into putting their logo on it.
This must be more of that unconscionable police brutality we've heard so much about. Let's give free rein to the people spraying 'ACAB' on the Cenotaph, shall we?
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
Page 3: A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path
Page 10: a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.
When she was parachuted into the Senate seat, she hacked off everyone in the local party by replacing long standing, effective people with people from her "in group". Who needed bigger salaries....
The holiday in the middle of the campaign, the speeches to Goldman Sachs, blowing off the teachers unions multiple times... No wonder Bill Clinton was pounding the upholstery in his limo....
Given the registration threshold is £85k and this piece of work is £30k... is he the least experienced builder on the block? Not sure I'd want him building my home extension...
Ed Vaizey on Talk Radio for example.
That's the real threat of course, not some refugee knifing innocent people to death.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
- PIRA - "Republican Terrorists"
- UVF - "Loyalist Terrorists", or "Protestant Paramilitaries". The latter because they are very often specifically anti-catholic. While anti-protestant violence (Kingsmill) wasn't unknown form the IRA, the PIRA claims to be following in the One Ireland views of 1798 etc.
- Thomas Mair - "Far Right Terrorist"
If someone kills people while banging on about Alan's Snackbar, they will be taken at their word.
It will make me f*cking ecstatic.
Actually I don;t think this will rebound on the British muslim community, as at first sight this guy is not even a British muslim. The British muslim community's record on this in recent times is good.
The attention will probably be on why he is here in the first place, why he hasn;t been deported blah blah blah.
And it’s made no difference.
Why?
Much of this resulted from working with people more senior than me and then getting to know them socially and personally better after hours, so we really bonded. When you then reach out for help later they then go out of their way to help you.
Men should socialise far more with women outside the office (still a bit of raised eyebrows goes on about that, with people assuming they must be shagging) and also from different backgrounds.
So you can actually make a difference just by going to the pub with a range of BAME people at work, buying them a drink, having a laugh and getting to know them.
Isn't that great?
That the chance might come again (almost) 10 years later doesn't invalidate the warning. Rather, it emphasises it.
Beyond speculating, he deserves to be locked up for murder, deported if necessary. I have no qualms about that.
And you're spot on, the British Muslim community are always rapid to call out these incidents because if they don't, they immediately are told they're condoning it. It's odd the CoE or any other religious organisation doesn't have to apologise for incidents around the world done in their respective names.
As there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent there will therefore be no indyref2 for the rest of this parliament
By the way, does anyone find it interesting that no one has found out who it was who OK'd the variance of his bail conditions to allow him to come to London?