Sensible proposition. Stamp duty is a daft tax on moving house and council tax's cap at the upper end cuts off a perfectly reasonable source of revenue while also being highly regressive. Probably too sensible to happen.
Not sure about replacing council tax with a national tax, council tax is the main source of local authority revenue.
The idea is good but should be done at a local as well as national level
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Yes, having enemies and being invaded are two different things, and classic country X invades country Y as per WW2 has become extremely rare across the globe, virtually the only examples being disputed borders and the aftermath of state collapse (Ukraine being the obvious example). Conversely, society is now much more vulnerable to direct cyberattack and more insidious efforts like fake news. I don't see much point in retaining significant tank forces but we should certainly invest in expanding places like GCHQ.
An interesitng question is *why* international invasion has become rare. Has the human race grown up a bit?
Because you can impose your will and achieve your political objectives more readily by subterfuge and intimidation in a very advanced society.
But, ultimately, if that doesn't work it's sticks and stones on the ground that it all boils down to.
There are a lot of powerful forces under the surface and they have noted Putin´s ever more listless performances.
People in the West often assume Putin is at the top of the Russian "vertical of power" but in reality he is the gnomish henchman of the oligarchs propelled from relative obscurity to the presidency to be the Russian Pinochet.
I think the situation has developed somewhat since 1999. What you say about his elevation is undoubtedly true. In subsequent years Putin turned on, and purged, some of his erstwhile backers, and has successfully maintained power.
Sensible proposition. Stamp duty is a daft tax on moving house and council tax's cap at the upper end cuts off a perfectly reasonable source of revenue while also being highly regressive. Probably too sensible to happen.
The sort of thing Labour should have in its next manifesto. My concern would be that it would further diminish local authorities control over their own revenues.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Yes, having enemies and being invaded are two different things, and classic country X invades country Y as per WW2 has become extremely rare across the globe, virtually the only examples being disputed borders and the aftermath of state collapse (Ukraine being the obvious example). Conversely, society is now much more vulnerable to direct cyberattack and more insidious efforts like fake news. I don't see much point in retaining significant tank forces but we should certainly invest in expanding places like GCHQ.
An interesitng question is *why* international invasion has become rare. Has the human race grown up a bit?
1. Financial cost. It just isn't worth the outlay. It takes far too long for the victor to recoup.
2. Many of the world's borders are now very settled. European borders - for centuries the source of most of these international invasions - are not the source of conflict they were.
3. Large power entities have gone from military (British Empire, Warsaw Pact) to economic (Commonwealth, EU). China has found a way to mask ambitions of empire as "friendship" to secure its economic needs - rare earth metals in Africa, for example. Just buy the head guy. So much easier.
4. Don't laugh at the back - The United Nations. A gathering to talk about grievances/heap opprobrium - and sanctions - on those who might invade.
5. Democracy. It is generally hard to get elected on the basis of taking your country to war. We have moved even recently from those prepared to sanction wars when in power - Bush, Blair - to those who don't see its electoral benefits - Trump.
6. Mutual assistance against aggressors - whether formal (NATO) or rather more behind the scenes (US aid to the UK in regaining the Falklands).
7. Not all good news though - the trend is more towards securing power within exisiting borders, whatever that takes - look at Syria.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
The Israelis, unsurprisingly, get this. They have just subjected their entire defence capability to what was described as 'an MRI with painful consequences'. They are rapidly jettisoning a lot (but not all) legacy platforms such as aircraft and tanks to focus on cyber, EW and precision strike.
If they are they'll be replaced by newer and more efficient technology that allows domination of the skies and the ground.
Israel has a number of neighbours who are unpredictable and could turn hostile in the foreseeable future.
I'm growing a little weary of US channels, especially CNN, bashing Britain. There have been a whole series of articles focused on what a cock-up the country now is. Brexit has been a particular source of derision. Here's CNN's latest:
I'm a left-leaner who voted Labour and campaigned vigorously for Remain. Even I'm getting irritated by this constant negativity. It's not only that it's a case of 'pot, kettle, black'. It's two other things which I am increasingly feeling.
1. Brexit has not (yet) been the disaster some were excitedly predicting. Yes there are teething issues but, frankly, it has gone quite smoothly so far. We have a trade deal and our vaccine rollout is undeniably faster thanks to shaking off the EU shackles.
2. The vaccine rollout is a STELLAR success so far. The UK is on course to be the global leader on mass vaccination of its citizens (Israel, UAE, Bahrain are doing well too with smaller populations). In a handful of months we will have the vast majority of the country vaccinated, the virus all but eliminated and our citizens able to travel the world as a result. It is absolutely clear that airlines in conjunction with the WHO are going to make vaccination the prerequisite for travel.
Yes there have been cock-ups and u-turns but Boris Johnson and Britain are doing alright.
Maybe don't watch CNN if you don't like it?
Gotta burnish those left-leaning, Labour voting, Remain campaigning credentials tho’. Expect a paean to how sensible Tony Blair is sounding lately..
Sensible proposition. Stamp duty is a daft tax on moving house and council tax's cap at the upper end cuts off a perfectly reasonable source of revenue while also being highly regressive. Probably too sensible to happen.
Having paid a shed load on stamp duty I would feel highly aggrieved if I had to pay for it again in an ongoing property tax.
Even though I think property taxes in principle makes sense.
I suspect the fact there has been a stamp duty holiday for the last few months would put the scuppers on the argument, and if the plan is to introduce this in 2022 say they could just continue the stamp duty holiday.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
An interesitng question is *why* international invasion has become rare. Has the human race grown up a bit?
It's too much of a hassle these days. Even really awful places aren't generally prepared to undertake the wholesale slaughter youd probably need to maintain control, in the public eye no less. It's also easier and less costly to destabilize those you want and stabilizes others, for influence, than invade.
Not so much grown up exactly as the worlds more complicated.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Yes, having enemies and being invaded are two different things, and classic country X invades country Y as per WW2 has become extremely rare across the globe, virtually the only examples being disputed borders and the aftermath of state collapse (Ukraine being the obvious example). Conversely, society is now much more vulnerable to direct cyberattack and more insidious efforts like fake news. I don't see much point in retaining significant tank forces but we should certainly invest in expanding places like GCHQ.
An interesitng question is *why* international invasion has become rare. Has the human race grown up a bit?
1. Financial cost. It just isn't worth the outlay. It takes far too long for the victor to recoup.
2. Many of the world's borders are now very settled. European borders - for centuries the source of most of these international invasions - are not the source of conflict they were.
3. Large power entities have gone from military (British Empire, Warsaw Pact) to economic (Commonwealth, EU). China has found a way to mask ambitions of empire as "friendship" to secure its economic needs - rare earth metals in Africa, for example. Just buy the head guy. So much easier.
4. Don't laugh at the back - The United Nations. A gathering to talk about grievances/heap opprobrium - and sanctions - on those who might invade.
5. Democracy. It is generally hard to get elected on the basis of taking your country to war. We have moved even recently from those prepared to sanction wars when in power - Bush, Blair - to those who don't see its electoral benefits - Trump.
6. Mutual assistance against aggressors - whether formal (NATO) or rather more behind the scenes (US aid to the UK in regaining the Falklands.
7. Not all good news though - the trend is more towards securing power within exisiting borders, whatever that takes - look at Syria.
Biden will be more of a neocon and more hawklike in regards to Russia and the Middle East than Trump was. He will equally be wary of China.
As he voted for the Iraq War Obama opposed Biden will also be the most neoconservative US President since George W Bush despite being a Democrat.
It always struck me as a bit overstated. Yes, families were going to be mixing a bit more, particularly inter generationally, but Christmas means that work stops these days so no one going to the office, travelling on public transport (if there is any), going to shops, etc. One probably cancelled the other out to a large extent.
What we have seen is a spike in 80+ year olds iirc. I'm pretty sure that's a xmas mixing effect. Indeed, there was a case outlined in this week's New Statesman by a working GP of exactly that.
Yes, that would be the intergenerational effect and given that many of those invited for Christmas lunch had been shielding for good reasons that will have an effect but the overall infection rate was not likely to be materially different.
One of the great frustrations for me of this virus is that we have not focused on how you actually catch it. So, for example, we have been focusing on hand washing for over a year. Does it make any difference at all? I would suggest the evidence is no, that it is very difficult to pick up a sufficient load of the virus from a surface. We didn't get on to masks nearly early enough, possibly because there was a shortage of PPE for front line workers. Is it really dangerous to go within 1m of someone for a few seconds in a shop or other indoor setting? Is it dangerous to do that outdoors?
I wish we had a clearer picture of when and how we catch this. Inside for extended periods breathing poorly circulating air seems much more of an issue than social distancing.
I think it varies depending on the situation, but aerosolisation has been underrated as a transmission mechanism. For example hospital Trusts mandating FFP3 masks (which block aerosols) rather than fluid resistant surgical masks (blocking droplets only) have half the rate of staff infections on Covid wards.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Not against that in principle, but the article suggests that it's unnamed people in the Treausry having a look and Sunak yet to be persuaded and in general sceptical about property taxation. It reads like a kite-flying exercise.
Agreed. I suspect they will attempt to fly the kite, and then realise that's a bad idea due to ill winds.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
It's not really an issue at all, just something contrived in order to serve the purpose of shouting "look, woke squirrel".
O/T: I'm translating new German legislation relaxing the rules on issuing methadone and other substitutes for illegal drugs to reduce the need for daily contact with doctors and nurses - more self-medication will be temporarily allowed. It's struck me here that pharmacies are continuing to require monthly visits for even mildly controlled medication (I've been taking a sleeping pill for 20 years), and I wonfder if we shouldn't be also introducing temporary relaaxation to limit the number of visits needed. Maybe Foxy can comment?
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Yes, having enemies and being invaded are two different things, and classic country X invades country Y as per WW2 has become extremely rare across the globe, virtually the only examples being disputed borders and the aftermath of state collapse (Ukraine being the obvious example). Conversely, society is now much more vulnerable to direct cyberattack and more insidious efforts like fake news. I don't see much point in retaining significant tank forces but we should certainly invest in expanding places like GCHQ.
An interesitng question is *why* international invasion has become rare. Has the human race grown up a bit?
1. Financial cost. It just isn't worth the outlay. It takes far too long for the victor to recoup.
2. Many of the world's borders are now very settled. European borders - for centuries the source of most of these international invasions - are not the source of conflict they were.
3. Large power entities have gone from military (British Empire, Warsaw Pact) to economic (Commonwealth, EU). China has found a way to mask ambitions of empire as "friendship" to secure its economic needs - rare earth metals in Africa, for example. Just buy the head guy. So much easier.
4. Don't laugh at the back - The United Nations. A gathering to talk about grievances/heap opprobrium - and sanctions - on those who might invade.
5. Democracy. It is generally hard to get elected on the basis of taking your country to war. We have moved even recently from those prepared to sanction wars when in power - Bush, Blair - to those who don't see its electoral benefits - Trump.
6. Mutual assistance against aggressors - whether formal (NATO) or rather more behind the scenes (US aid to the UK in regaining the Falklands).
7. Not all good news though - the trend is more towards securing power within exisiting borders, whatever that takes - look at Syria.
I do like via the first part that a big part of it is not that the human race has morally gotten better, it's just no longer seen as in peoples interests to bother. Like opposing slavery as not economically useful - good thing regardless even if the motivation is not necessarily high minded.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
Government has been reducing how much its puts back to councils, but of course business rates have been spread around so richer areas dont get all they raise there.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
It's not really an issue at all, just something contrived in order to serve the purpose of shouting "look, woke squirrel".
A bit. Needing planning permission in many of these cases wont be onerous and lots of trivial things require it, so it seems a harmless distraction.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
Local authorities will always need some central government support to help with “levelling up”.
But for democratic reasons, councils should collect at least 50% of their income from local residents.
We need to increase council (or land) tax and reduce income tax.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
It's not really an issue at all, just something contrived in order to serve the purpose of shouting "look, woke squirrel".
Pulling down statues is popular with many Labour councils because their left-wing membership and activist base dig it - they think the act of doing so demonstrates solidarity with minorities and represents some sort of progress. In reality, it sows division and does nothing to advance the cause of racial equality. In fact, it might even make it more difficult.
They should read the Hope Not Hate poll for what minorities really think about it.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
Sky are doing commentator Bingo for today's big match - quite a lot seem worth a bet, although I guess that is the case for most of these Bingo markets
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
How would a local sales tax work?
Add council tax bands and you immediately have a problem of revaluation - and I really do think that is something that the Government is going to want to avoid. Remember house prices in the Red Wall seats are 1/2 to 1/3 of the price down South or worse - any council band revaluations will make that obvious.
I actually think you end up with a land value tax as the more political safe option regardless of the pain it creates.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Yes, having enemies and being invaded are two different things, and classic country X invades country Y as per WW2 has become extremely rare across the globe, virtually the only examples being disputed borders and the aftermath of state collapse (Ukraine being the obvious example). Conversely, society is now much more vulnerable to direct cyberattack and more insidious efforts like fake news. I don't see much point in retaining significant tank forces but we should certainly invest in expanding places like GCHQ.
An interesitng question is *why* international invasion has become rare. Has the human race grown up a bit?
1. Financial cost. It just isn't worth the outlay. It takes far too long for the victor to recoup.
2. Many of the world's borders are now very settled. European borders - for centuries the source of most of these international invasions - are not the source of conflict they were.
3. Large power entities have gone from military (British Empire, Warsaw Pact) to economic (Commonwealth, EU). China has found a way to mask ambitions of empire as "friendship" to secure its economic needs - rare earth metals in Africa, for example. Just buy the head guy. So much easier.
4. Don't laugh at the back - The United Nations. A gathering to talk about grievances/heap opprobrium - and sanctions - on those who might invade.
5. Democracy. It is generally hard to get elected on the basis of taking your country to war. We have moved even recently from those prepared to sanction wars when in power - Bush, Blair - to those who don't see its electoral benefits - Trump.
6. Mutual assistance against aggressors - whether formal (NATO) or rather more behind the scenes (US aid to the UK in regaining the Falklands).
7. Not all good news though - the trend is more towards securing power within exisiting borders, whatever that takes - look at Syria.
Good and convincing post. Anecdotally in support of point 3, Tony Blair said that the Iraq intevention was not about oil, as some critics suggested, since "if we were merely worried about oil supply we could certainly just cut a deal with Saddam".
And yes, my delight about Biden's victory is slightly tempered by the possibility that he'll turn out to be another enthusiastic interventionist. But times have moved on as you say.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
I've always found it odd that particular advice, like being unionist or nationalist should be a position taken up purely as a matter of party advantage. Might as well have told the SNP to pack it in and become Unionist back in the days when they were not dominant. That would be absurd.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
Les is in a lot of ways correct. For Scottish Labour to win seats they need to recover Labour to SNP supporters and unionism is reason enough for those people keep voting SNP.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
Spot on. They've tried the same tactics on various groups: claims of missing/altered ballots targeted at Yes supporters in 2014, Labour supporters in 2019, Republican supporters in 2020. Fake news about migration and paedophilia that found a lot of traction amongst Ukip supporters, amplifying sexual paranoia and population replacement conspiracy theories within the right.
It always struck me as a bit overstated. Yes, families were going to be mixing a bit more, particularly inter generationally, but Christmas means that work stops these days so no one going to the office, travelling on public transport (if there is any), going to shops, etc. One probably cancelled the other out to a large extent.
What we have seen is a spike in 80+ year olds iirc. I'm pretty sure that's a xmas mixing effect. Indeed, there was a case outlined in this week's New Statesman by a working GP of exactly that.
Yes, that would be the intergenerational effect and given that many of those invited for Christmas lunch had been shielding for good reasons that will have an effect but the overall infection rate was not likely to be materially different.
One of the great frustrations for me of this virus is that we have not focused on how you actually catch it. So, for example, we have been focusing on hand washing for over a year. Does it make any difference at all? I would suggest the evidence is no, that it is very difficult to pick up a sufficient load of the virus from a surface. We didn't get on to masks nearly early enough, possibly because there was a shortage of PPE for front line workers. Is it really dangerous to go within 1m of someone for a few seconds in a shop or other indoor setting? Is it dangerous to do that outdoors?
I wish we had a clearer picture of when and how we catch this. Inside for extended periods breathing poorly circulating air seems much more of an issue than social distancing.
I think it varies depending on the situation, but aerosolisation has been underrated as a transmission mechanism. For example hospital Trusts mandating FFP3 masks (which block aerosols) rather than fluid resistant surgical masks (blocking droplets only) have half the rate of staff infections on Covid wards.
Yes, that's exactly the sort of detail that should be informing our policies. Far too much effort wasted on pointless things and not enough attention to what's important. We have consistently used sledgehammers when we should be using a rapier.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
Les is in a lot of ways correct. For Scottish Labour to win seats they need to recover Labour to SNP supporters and unionism is reason enough for those people keep voting SNP.
You’re suggesting unionism/independence is the primary determinant of voting behaviour.
No, the Government would have responded much, much slower, and only then when the pandemic of statue toppling was totally out of control, eventually introducing a high tech "world beating" qr system that required people to log in whenever they got anywhere near a statue, only to find that it was widely ignored.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
Local authorities will always need some central government support to help with “levelling up”.
But for democratic reasons, councils should collect at least 50% of their income from local residents.
We need to increase council (or land) tax and reduce income tax.
Or give councils a percentage of income tax and ensure they focus on encouraging companies to go there and offer well paid jobs.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
It's not really an issue at all, just something contrived in order to serve the purpose of shouting "look, woke squirrel".
A bit. Needing planning permission in many of these cases wont be onerous and lots of trivial things require it, so it seems a harmless distraction.
And, ironically, by providing a clear legal pathway to remove awkward statues and street names, it could lead to more being removed. Example: the median view on Colston was "the statue should be removed, but by due process".
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
Surely the way to foment discord in the near future would be to support any future campaign trying to get us back in. Brexit is divisive for two reasons (a) voters appear to be evenly split on the matter and (b) it raises strong emotions, for reasons I don't quite understand. Remain - or rejoin - is just as divisive as Brexit, it just happened to be the status quo.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
So Unionist parties should give up on getting any of the 50%+ SNP voters back? Will be interesting to see how the patented HYUFD campaigning mode of ‘fuck off if you voted for party X’ goes down in May.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Everything in there is spot on apart from one question: China? We know for sure Russia's been doing all you say, but has China really been at it too?
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
Les is in a lot of ways correct. For Scottish Labour to win seats they need to recover Labour to SNP supporters and unionism is reason enough for those people keep voting SNP.
No they don't, most of the seats they have lost to the SNP outside Glasgow and Dundee voted No to independence in 2014.
Labour have zero chance of winning back any voters from the SNP, there only chance of regaining seats is tactical votes from Unionist Tories and LDs to beat the SNP
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
Local authorities will always need some central government support to help with “levelling up”.
But for democratic reasons, councils should collect at least 50% of their income from local residents.
We need to increase council (or land) tax and reduce income tax.
Or give councils a percentage of income tax and ensure they focus on encouraging companies to go there and offer well paid jobs.
Doubt it would work in the way you anticipate. Too indirect.
But you make a key point.
Councils should be incented and enabled to: a) be responsive to their taxpaying population. b) promote economic growth / jobs in their area.
This is far from the case in the U.K. To a depressing and debilitating degree.
It’s the sort of stuff that Blair perhaps refers to in his speech yesterday. Having Brexited, we really have to stop the self-defeating shit.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
It's about division. They know those arguing for a federal Europe, euro, European citizenship etc will accentuate political divisions.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
Surely the way to foment discord in the near future would be to support any future campaign trying to get us back in. Brexit is divisive for two reasons (a) voters appear to be evenly split on the matter and (b) it raises strong emotions, for reasons I don't quite understand. Remain - or rejoin - is just as divisive as Brexit, it just happened to be the status quo.
Maybe.
Except that at present “ultra-rejoiners” is a phantom conjured up by Brexiters to make themselves feel better for having damaged their own country.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Everything in there is spot on apart from one question: China? We know for sure Russia's been doing all you say, but has China really been at it too?
Yes. Iran too, although they're less capable. I've seen this first hand on a major project I was working on - I can't share the evidence source as it was confidential, I'm afraid.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
It's not really an issue at all, just something contrived in order to serve the purpose of shouting "look, woke squirrel".
Pulling down statues is popular with many Labour councils because their left-wing membership and activist base dig it - they think the act of doing so demonstrates solidarity with minorities and represents some sort of progress. In reality, it sows division and does nothing to advance the cause of racial equality. In fact, it might even make it more difficult.
They should read the Hope Not Hate poll for what minorities really think about it.
No, that it is happening on any scale without appropriate consultation is a myth, one which it suits Jenrick to exaggerate and peddle for political purposes. A non-story, if every I saw one.
No future for Scottish Labour if it remains Unionist, former minister says A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
That former junior 1970s minister left Labour over the Iraq War and is an SNP member.
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
So Unionist parties should give up on getting any of the 50%+ SNP voters back? Will be interesting to see how the patented HYUFD campaigning mode of ‘fuck off if you voted for party X’ goes down in May.
Unionist Parties can hope to get maybe 5-10% or so of the 50% who support the SNP back, the SNP got 45% at the UK GE in 2019 the same as Yes got in 2014 and 46.5% at the 2016 Holyrood elections. Even at their 2017 low the SNP still got 37%, the Tories 29% and Labour 27%.
Scottish politics is divided on Unionist and Nationalist lines, Yes voters in 2014 are generally not going to stop voting SNP, at most they would go Green.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
It's about division. They know those arguing for a federal Europe, euro, European citizenship etc will accentuate political divisions.
These people don’t really exist, though.
UKIP, Reform, Leave.EU, whoever is funding Darren Grimes etc are all actual entities that have capability to divide us (and seemingly the willingness to continue to do so via culture wars).
Ultra-rejoiners? I can think of Andrew Adonis and that private university professor guy and that’s about it. There’s no constituency for what you describe as ultra-rejoinerism.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
How would a local sales tax work?
Add council tax bands and you immediately have a problem of revaluation - and I really do think that is something that the Government is going to want to avoid. Remember house prices in the Red Wall seats are 1/2 to 1/3 of the price down South or worse - any council band revaluations will make that obvious.
I actually think you end up with a land value tax as the more political safe option regardless of the pain it creates.
You stick 1-2 or 3% on VAT by city or county.
Ideally this would be accompanied by central government reducing VAT to 18% in the first instance, which would end up transferring about £20 billion in revenue generation from central to local government.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
It's about division. They know those arguing for a federal Europe, euro, European citizenship etc will accentuate political divisions.
Yes, but you need to grasp that the division sought is not just within countries, but between them. Brexit is something clearly favoured by Putin.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
They what? I'm amazed to have never heard of this.
From my early schooling in America, John Paul Jones is recognised as the father of the US Navy.
The English don't tend to talk about wars they lost. Cf British-Afghan Wars (1838-42, 1878-80, 1919-21).
We never stop talking about the absolute hiding the Germans gave us at the Battle of Dunkerque.
No, no, Dun..... however it's spelled ........ was a victory by the plucky yachtsmen and fishermen (please bear in mind) who rescued our brave boys from the Nazis.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
Local authorities will always need some central government support to help with “levelling up”.
But for democratic reasons, councils should collect at least 50% of their income from local residents.
We need to increase council (or land) tax and reduce income tax.
Or give councils a percentage of income tax and ensure they focus on encouraging companies to go there and offer well paid jobs.
Doubt it would work in the way you anticipate. Too indirect.
But you make a key point.
Councils should be incented and enabled to: a) be responsive to their taxpaying population. b) promote economic growth / jobs in their area.
This is far from the case in the U.K. To a depressing and debilitating degree.
It’s the sort of stuff that Blair perhaps refers to in his speech yesterday. Having Brexited, we really have to stop the self-defeating shit.
Yep - it would be indirect but the issue is that you very quickly run out of sane options.
Land value tax or any council tax revaluation is going to make a lot of northern people feel poor if house owners regard house prices as wealth.
You can't introduce a local sales tax as how would a chain store truthfully calculate what goes to which council and that's before we talk about Amazon. Remember in the US sales tax is added on top of the label price you just couldn't introduce that here.
It really is one of those things where you look at it and go well I really wouldn't want to start from here especially as you start going into details you start to see real problems that make the other options bad.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Everything in there is spot on apart from one question: China? We know for sure Russia's been doing all you say, but has China really been at it too?
Yes. Iran too, although they're less capable. I've seen this first hand on a major project I was working on - I can't share the evidence source as it was confidential, I'm afraid.
No doubt. Although China’s interest in doing this in the U.K. is subtly different than Russia’s.
China is interested in tech theft, undermining or stifling potential criticism of China, and creating economic dependencies that achieve the same thing.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
Surely the way to foment discord in the near future would be to support any future campaign trying to get us back in. Brexit is divisive for two reasons (a) voters appear to be evenly split on the matter and (b) it raises strong emotions, for reasons I don't quite understand. Remain - or rejoin - is just as divisive as Brexit, it just happened to be the status quo.
Maybe.
Except that at present “ultra-rejoiners” is a phantom conjured up by Brexiters to make themselves feel better for having damaged their own country.
Erecting straw men again I see. I saw that as a bit of a throw-away line. By the next election we might indeed have "ultra-rejoiners".
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Everything in there is spot on apart from one question: China? We know for sure Russia's been doing all you say, but has China really been at it too?
Yes. Iran too, although they're less capable. I've seen this first hand on a major project I was working on - I can't share the evidence source as it was confidential, I'm afraid.
Alright, we can add NK into the mix too, but I have to say China is a new one on me. If you've seen any good articles about it, please send them my way.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
It's about division. They know those arguing for a federal Europe, euro, European citizenship etc will accentuate political divisions.
These people don’t really exist, though.
UKIP, Reform, Leave.EU, whoever is funding Darren Grimes etc are all actual entities that have capability to divide us (and seemingly the willingness to continue to do so via culture wars).
Ultra-rejoiners? I can think of Andrew Adonis and that private university professor guy and that’s about it. There’s no constituency for what you describe as ultra-rejoinerism.
They are a small minority but a very vocal and widely reported one. I'd say about 9-10% of the electorate.
Reform would never have happened without Laurence Fox (idiotic as he can be at times) getting cancelled and piled on for taking a different view on white privilege. And (I know from experience) how utterly infuriating it is when those who voted another way in the EU referendum disown their British identity as a result and start to egg on every challenge the UK subsequently faces, and cheers on the EU taking the hardest line possible. Same with statues and historical monuments. I agree Leave.EU is dodgy and vulgar, and I don't like Aaron Banks at all.
The trouble with cultural divisions is that those on one side of it fail to see the troubles their own side cause.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
Surely the way to foment discord in the near future would be to support any future campaign trying to get us back in. Brexit is divisive for two reasons (a) voters appear to be evenly split on the matter and (b) it raises strong emotions, for reasons I don't quite understand. Remain - or rejoin - is just as divisive as Brexit, it just happened to be the status quo.
Maybe.
Except that at present “ultra-rejoiners” is a phantom conjured up by Brexiters to make themselves feel better for having damaged their own country.
Erecting straw men again I see. I saw that as a bit of a throw-away line. By the next election we might indeed have "ultra-rejoiners".
We might do.
But at present we don’t.
So rhetorically including “ultra rejoiners” alongside “ultra brexiters” is what I was calling out.
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
How would a local sales tax work?
Add council tax bands and you immediately have a problem of revaluation - and I really do think that is something that the Government is going to want to avoid. Remember house prices in the Red Wall seats are 1/2 to 1/3 of the price down South or worse - any council band revaluations will make that obvious.
I actually think you end up with a land value tax as the more political safe option regardless of the pain it creates.
You stick 1-2 or 3% on VAT by city or county.
Ideally this would be accompanied by central government reducing VAT to 18% in the first instance, which would end up transferring about £20 billion in revenue generation from central to local government.
Great in theory but how would it work in practice? Does Tesco need to swallow the 21% rate in areas that charge that do their increase their prices or do you change things so that the tax is not included on the sticker price.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
Surely the way to foment discord in the near future would be to support any future campaign trying to get us back in. Brexit is divisive for two reasons (a) voters appear to be evenly split on the matter and (b) it raises strong emotions, for reasons I don't quite understand. Remain - or rejoin - is just as divisive as Brexit, it just happened to be the status quo.
Maybe.
Except that at present “ultra-rejoiners” is a phantom conjured up by Brexiters to make themselves feel better for having damaged their own country.
Erecting straw men again I see. I saw that as a bit of a throw-away line. By the next election we might indeed have "ultra-rejoiners".
Don't see it happening personally. The most pro rejoin members of my local LD party have either quit or in some cases emigrated.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
It's not really an issue at all, just something contrived in order to serve the purpose of shouting "look, woke squirrel".
Pulling down statues is popular with many Labour councils because their left-wing membership and activist base dig it - they think the act of doing so demonstrates solidarity with minorities and represents some sort of progress. In reality, it sows division and does nothing to advance the cause of racial equality. In fact, it might even make it more difficult.
They should read the Hope Not Hate poll for what minorities really think about it.
No, that it is happening on any scale without appropriate consultation is a myth, one which it suits Jenrick to exaggerate and peddle for political purposes. A non-story, if every I saw one.
I misunderstood you.
I disagree. The consultations are token and narrow, often by selected "soundings" and survey monkey polls with leading question. Sometimes not even that as the Baden Powell incident in Poole showed. Redvers Buller offence in Exeter seems to be that he was simply a soldier in Victorian times.
I think primary legislation is right to put formal consultation and planning on a statutory basis.
I am less concerned about street names but this depends how prominent and old they are. The longer they have been established there the higher the test for change should be.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
They what? I'm amazed to have never heard of this.
From my early schooling in America, John Paul Jones is recognised as the father of the US Navy.
The English don't tend to talk about wars they lost. Cf British-Afghan Wars (1838-42, 1878-80, 1919-21).
We never stop talking about the absolute hiding the Germans gave us at the Battle of Dunkerque.
Surely Dunkirk wasn't a defeat - the British weren't trying to repulse the German advance through France at that point, merely hold them off long enough to get most of the British and allied forces back across the Channel. On that basis it was a great success, probably the most important Allied success in the War up to that point. Your general point stands though. Mind you, when a country does start obsessing about its defeats (eg Germany after 1918, the stab in the back myth etc) it's not necessarily a good sign.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
Russia has never controlled an acre of British soil so far as I'm aware, they were an adversary through the cold war due to our position in the globe, nuclear firepower and alliance with the USA via NATO. France and Denmark are the only nations that have properly invaded us iirc, and those feuds in terms of military threats are long gone. Other historical threats have been when we stood up for what we believed (And certainly was in the case of the Nazis) was right in the world, and our own empire building a bit further back. So far as I can see for the forseeable future there won't be a military threat to the UK, it'll be via disinformation/terrorism and so forth that Russia/Iran sponsor and engage in. But that isn't obviously countered with the military.
Holland has invaded several times, most recently a rather halfarsed affair in 1688 which, to everyone’s astonishment, worked. Norway also invaded England in 1066 and Scotland several times, notably Hakon’s catastrophe in 1263. Spain made several less than efficient attempts in the sixteenth century, including one landing in Cornwall in 1595 and an even more inept one the following year.
Couldn't the 1688 affair be reasonably described as 'in support of treasonous activity'?
Yes, though whether the treason was that of James II, who was selling the country to France and the Pope, or the immortal seven, who invited William over, is arguable.
Talking of traitors, the Americans briefly controlled an acre or so of British soil during their raid on Whitehaven in 1778.
Just catching up, a very good and insightful piece from @david_herdson yesterday.
As the USA increasingly looks towards China for its foreign policy issues, European nations are going to have to do much more themselves in the future, to defend against the threats from Russia.
Nah, Russia is no longer a military threat to us. It will concentrate on harassing its neighbours, and bumping off the odd dissident at home and abroad while sowing alt.right trolls across the west.
We have no significant military enemies any more. Indeed need to rethink what our armed forces are for besides bussing vaccines around old folks homes.
The new generation of wars will be fought in cyberspace, as much as by conventional militaries with guns, tanks and planes.
Russia has been trying to destabilise the West for a while now. Key to how we win the war is to reduce European dependence on the Russian oil and gas which is pretty much their only source of hand currency.
Indeed. Just because Russia doesn't have tanks on our doorstep threatening immediate physical invasion doesn't mean it's not a threat to us.
It regularly tests British air defences, launches submarine incursions into our waters, hacks our networks and intelligence and carries out acts of state-sanctioned murder on our soil. Not to mention invading its neighbours and trying to destabilise NATO, which keeps us safe overall.
Those who doubt the veracity of this should read the recent cross-party parliamentary report on Russia.
And notably its biggest threat is troll farms stirring up alt.right culture wars amongst useful idiots.
Yes, it does that. It also does it on the left too, seeking to undermine faith and belief in the British state, as well as regional nationalisms.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
The right, in its ideological campaign against government, has most to answer for in undermining faith and belief in institutions.
I wasn't having a go at your wing of the political spectrum here Jonathan (although, admittedly, I often do) I was merely making the point that the Russians and Chinese are entirely undiscerning when it comes to fomenting domestic division.
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
Hence Salmond on Russia Today, etc. But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
Surely the way to foment discord in the near future would be to support any future campaign trying to get us back in. Brexit is divisive for two reasons (a) voters appear to be evenly split on the matter and (b) it raises strong emotions, for reasons I don't quite understand. Remain - or rejoin - is just as divisive as Brexit, it just happened to be the status quo.
Maybe.
Except that at present “ultra-rejoiners” is a phantom conjured up by Brexiters to make themselves feel better for having damaged their own country.
Erecting straw men again I see. I saw that as a bit of a throw-away line. By the next election we might indeed have "ultra-rejoiners".
What is an ultra rejoiner and how do they differ from a regular rejoiner?
That would be sensible, but hard to see how it can be revenue neutral with every LA in England in roughly the financial position of RBS under Fred the Shred.
Presumably if the scheme is run nationally, the revenue would be redistributed to LAs, thus replacing one income stream with another. Might there be efficiency savings from this, with a less fragmented collection and administration meaning economies of scale? I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Local taxation should be set locally. Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
I think council tax only accounts for about a quarter to a third of LA income.
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
Local authorities will always need some central government support to help with “levelling up”.
But for democratic reasons, councils should collect at least 50% of their income from local residents.
We need to increase council (or land) tax and reduce income tax.
Or give councils a percentage of income tax and ensure they focus on encouraging companies to go there and offer well paid jobs.
Doubt it would work in the way you anticipate. Too indirect.
But you make a key point.
Councils should be incented and enabled to: a) be responsive to their taxpaying population. b) promote economic growth / jobs in their area.
This is far from the case in the U.K. To a depressing and debilitating degree.
It’s the sort of stuff that Blair perhaps refers to in his speech yesterday. Having Brexited, we really have to stop the self-defeating shit.
Yep - it would be indirect but the issue is that you very quickly run out of sane options.
Land value tax or any council tax revaluation is going to make a lot of northern people feel poor if house owners regard house prices as wealth.
You can't introduce a local sales tax as how would a chain store truthfully calculate what goes to which council and that's before we talk about Amazon. Remember in the US sales tax is added on top of the label price you just couldn't introduce that here.
It really is one of those things where you look at it and go well I really wouldn't want to start from here especially as you start going into details you start to see real problems that make the other options bad.
Agree it is not easy.
Local sales taxes would also be way too complex for consumers to deal with. I’m not in favour of them.
My preference is a land tax (not a property tax), levied locally.
Central govt would then top up councils, via a transparent formula, using the “national weal” ie VAT or income tax as you suggest.
Colston was toppled last summer. We have had lockdowns since last March. Statues should not be toppled without due process
I do wonder how many statues are actually that controversial. It probably isn't that many as Colston really was one of those exceptions where it was controversial to begin given that local people didn't pay for it.
It's not really an issue at all, just something contrived in order to serve the purpose of shouting "look, woke squirrel".
Pulling down statues is popular with many Labour councils because their left-wing membership and activist base dig it - they think the act of doing so demonstrates solidarity with minorities and represents some sort of progress. In reality, it sows division and does nothing to advance the cause of racial equality. In fact, it might even make it more difficult.
They should read the Hope Not Hate poll for what minorities really think about it.
No, that it is happening on any scale without appropriate consultation is a myth, one which it suits Jenrick to exaggerate and peddle for political purposes. A non-story, if every I saw one.
Jenrick's article is almost a carbon copy of one Liz Truss wrote a few weeks back for the Mail on Sunday. Culture war is a central part of the government's political strategy. It's how it believes it will keep its voting coalition together.
Comments
The idea is good but should be done at a local as well as national level
But, ultimately, if that doesn't work it's sticks and stones on the ground that it all boils down to.
2. Many of the world's borders are now very settled. European borders - for centuries the source of most of these international invasions - are not the source of conflict they were.
3. Large power entities have gone from military (British Empire, Warsaw Pact) to economic (Commonwealth, EU). China has found a way to mask ambitions of empire as "friendship" to secure its economic needs - rare earth metals in Africa, for example. Just buy the head guy. So much easier.
4. Don't laugh at the back - The United Nations. A gathering to talk about grievances/heap opprobrium - and sanctions - on those who might invade.
5. Democracy. It is generally hard to get elected on the basis of taking your country to war. We have moved even recently from those prepared to sanction wars when in power - Bush, Blair - to those who don't see its electoral benefits - Trump.
6. Mutual assistance against aggressors - whether formal (NATO) or rather more behind the scenes (US aid to the UK in regaining the Falklands).
7. Not all good news though - the trend is more towards securing power within exisiting borders, whatever that takes - look at Syria.
Israel has a number of neighbours who are unpredictable and could turn hostile in the foreseeable future.
Not so much grown up exactly as the worlds more complicated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
Meanwhile, we are breaking ties with our neighbours, contemplating Scottish independence, and our main ally’s political system is on the fritz.
As he voted for the Iraq War Obama opposed Biden will also be the most neoconservative US President since George W Bush despite being a Democrat.
Hence why John Bolton wanted Biden to beat Trump
I'm not a fan of this government's centralising instincts, but this would be good step to take.
Disunity and fragmentation is its chief interest because that makes us easy pickings.
Otherwise, councils are mere supplicants.
I appreciate this is largely the case already but that’s half the problem.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1350744695148867585?s=21
My view is that a couple of extra council tax bands and a level of local business/sales taxes would make sense, within reason.
A FORMER Labour minister has said there is no future for Labour in Scotland if it continues to be a Unionist party.
In an exclusive interview with the Sunday National in the wake of leader Richard Leonard’s resignation, Les Huckfield said that unless the party changed its stance on independence it was “never going to get anywhere”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19017357.no-future-scottish-labour-remains-unionist-former-minister-says/
They'll be funding and encouraging Corbynites, the Alt-Right, BLM, ultra-Brexiteers, pacifists, republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, English nationalists, XR, climate change sceptics, ultra-Rejoiners and condemners of the BBC.
Anything that polarises us.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55693019
Labour is not going to win back Nat voters from the SNP, its best hope is to remain a Unionist Party and win Tory and LD tactical votes to beat the SNP
But for democratic reasons, councils should collect at least 50% of their income from local residents.
We need to increase council (or land) tax and reduce income tax.
They should read the Hope Not Hate poll for what minorities really think about it.
https://m.skybet.com/football/commentator-bingo/event/26994791
What's the reason?
If it do prosper
None dare call it treason.
Add council tax bands and you immediately have a problem of revaluation - and I really do think that is something that the Government is going to want to avoid. Remember house prices in the Red Wall seats are 1/2 to 1/3 of the price down South or worse - any council band revaluations will make that obvious.
I actually think you end up with a land value tax as the more political safe option regardless of the pain it creates.
And yes, my delight about Biden's victory is slightly tempered by the possibility that he'll turn out to be another enthusiastic interventionist. But times have moved on as you say.
But Putin was (is) a Brexiter.
It really wasn’t only “ultra-Brexiteers” that benefited from Russian support.
And putting “ultra-Rejoiners” into the mix is total lolz.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1350747143225663489?s=20
I’m not sure about that.
Or maybe Manfred Mann?
Example: the median view on Colston was "the statue should be removed, but by due process".
Labour have zero chance of winning back any voters from the SNP, there only chance of regaining seats is tactical votes from Unionist Tories and LDs to beat the SNP
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,what-about-the-women
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2021/01/10/salmonds-submission-to-inquiry/
https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-a-matter-of-the-integrity-of-scotland-as-a-nation/
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-injured-party/
Too indirect.
But you make a key point.
Councils should be incented and enabled to:
a) be responsive to their taxpaying population.
b) promote economic growth / jobs in their area.
This is far from the case in the U.K.
To a depressing and debilitating degree.
It’s the sort of stuff that Blair perhaps refers to in his speech yesterday. Having Brexited, we really have to stop the self-defeating shit.
Except that at present “ultra-rejoiners” is a phantom conjured up by Brexiters to make themselves feel better for having damaged their own country.
Scottish politics is divided on Unionist and Nationalist lines, Yes voters in 2014 are generally not going to stop voting SNP, at most they would go Green.
UKIP, Reform, Leave.EU, whoever is funding Darren Grimes etc are all actual entities that have capability to divide us (and seemingly the willingness to continue to do so via culture wars).
Ultra-rejoiners? I can think of Andrew Adonis and that private university professor guy and that’s about it. There’s no constituency for what you describe as ultra-rejoinerism.
Ideally this would be accompanied by central government reducing VAT to 18% in the first instance, which would end up transferring about £20 billion in revenue generation from central to local government.
https://twitter.com/rosslarehbr/status/1350469999039832065?s=21
Land value tax or any council tax revaluation is going to make a lot of northern people feel poor if house owners regard house prices as wealth.
You can't introduce a local sales tax as how would a chain store truthfully calculate what goes to which council and that's before we talk about Amazon. Remember in the US sales tax is added on top of the label price you just couldn't introduce that here.
It really is one of those things where you look at it and go well I really wouldn't want to start from here especially as you start going into details you start to see real problems that make the other options bad.
Although China’s interest in doing this in the U.K. is subtly different than Russia’s.
China is interested in tech theft, undermining or stifling potential criticism of China, and creating economic dependencies that achieve the same thing.
Reform would never have happened without Laurence Fox (idiotic as he can be at times) getting cancelled and piled on for taking a different view on white privilege. And (I know from experience) how utterly infuriating it is when those who voted another way in the EU referendum disown their British identity as a result and start to egg on every challenge the UK subsequently faces, and cheers on the EU taking the hardest line possible. Same with statues and historical monuments. I agree Leave.EU is dodgy and vulgar, and I don't like Aaron Banks at all.
The trouble with cultural divisions is that those on one side of it fail to see the troubles their own side cause.
But at present we don’t.
So rhetorically including “ultra rejoiners” alongside “ultra brexiters” is what I was calling out.
So your straw man is right there.
I disagree. The consultations are token and narrow, often by selected "soundings" and survey monkey polls with leading question. Sometimes not even that as the Baden Powell incident in Poole showed. Redvers Buller offence in Exeter seems to be that he was simply a soldier in Victorian times.
I think primary legislation is right to put formal consultation and planning on a statutory basis.
I am less concerned about street names but this depends how prominent and old they are. The longer they have been established there the higher the test for change should be.
Anyway, must dash. Family day.
Local sales taxes would also be way too complex for consumers to deal with. I’m not in favour of them.
My preference is a land tax (not a property tax), levied locally.
Central govt would then top up councils, via a transparent formula, using the “national weal” ie VAT or income tax as you suggest.