Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

If you’re betting on Raab as next PM/Con leader look away now – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 7 in General
If you’re betting on Raab as next PM/Con leader look away now – politicalbetting.com

Whilst the net favourability of both Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer remains firmly in the negative, they have both seen a recent uptick in popularityJohnson: -19 (+6)Starmer: -23 (+7) (Changes from 18 Aug)https://t.co/qmGdoW56SN pic.twitter.com/O8hjVBWlpk

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • Test.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    I'm distraught that the fortunes of a patron of Conservatives Against Fox hunting should take such a turn.

    Gutted for him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    If the boundary changes go through Esher and Walton would actually be a LD gain.

    Though yes Sunak is more likely to be next Tory leader when Boris goes with Patel more likely to be the initial candidate of the right
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2021/06/who-are-winners-and-losers-new-parliamentary-boundary-changes
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    To be fair to the Raabster he took a most Churchillian approach to the recent Afghan withdrawal. He decided the best approach was to fight them from the beach.

    For him, this is, perhaps, the beginning of the end.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,632
    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 523
    FPT

    With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.

    As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.

    1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.

    2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.

    3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.

    In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.

    People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.

    In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    Bumped into a very senior member of the Cabinet walking down Whitehall on their way to the meeting to sign off Social Care tax bombshell... "seen the plans yet"? "Nope".. I hope they were bluffing....

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1435143795805458432?s=20
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    Peter Lilley argues that a government backed private insurance scheme is the care answer:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/07/alternative-tax-funded-care/
  • Bumped into a very senior member of the Cabinet walking down Whitehall on their way to the meeting to sign off Social Care tax bombshell... "seen the plans yet"? "Nope".. I hope they were bluffing....

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1435143795805458432?s=20

    Worzel assured everyone at the election that he already had the details of the social care plan. A couple of years later and there still isn't a plan, only a funding black hole. We know that he doesn't do detail so it shouldn't be a surprise that they haven't been shared with the plebs in the cabinet.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963

    Bumped into a very senior member of the Cabinet walking down Whitehall on their way to the meeting to sign off Social Care tax bombshell... "seen the plans yet"? "Nope".. I hope they were bluffing....

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1435143795805458432?s=20

    is this news? we were told weeks ago that rishi, javid and johnson were thrashing this out themselves.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355

    is this news? we were told weeks ago that rishi, javid and johnson were thrashing this out themselves.

    ...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    Interesting point from Laura K - Dilnott stuff is already on statute books.


  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,632
    IshmaelZ said:

    I'm distraught that the fortunes of a patron of Conservatives Against Fox hunting should take such a turn.

    Gutted for him.

    Is that true? If so I've changed my opinion of this kind and gentle soul.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355

    Worzel assured everyone at the election that he already had the details of the social care plan. A couple of years later and there still isn't a plan, only a funding black hole. We know that he doesn't do detail so it shouldn't be a surprise that they haven't been shared with the plebs in the cabinet.

    His plan for everything, when you boil it down, is to lie about the plan.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-promises-fine-banana-24917659 https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1434848420544622598/photo/1
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,036
    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    SKS ratings are far worse now than a year ago. Encourging my arse
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353
    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    How are more people becoming familiar with him? I haven't seen or heard of him on TV or radio for ages, outside political programs few people except anoraks watch.

    He needs to change this: but it is an opportunity for him to build a Blair-like momentum pre-1997 against a government bedevilled with problems. If he can take it ...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,214
    @darkage you wouldn’t have to build social housing, the councils could simply buy the housing stock from the landlords. Would be cheaper.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,327

    Peter Lilley argues that a government backed private insurance scheme is the care answer:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/07/alternative-tax-funded-care/

    Good simple idea. Why have the clever clogs in the ministries either rejected it or not even considered it (as per Lilley's final paragraph)?

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,153
    edited September 7
    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Are you looking at the same chart I am looking at - the one in the header? Starmer has, arguably, halted the slide in his ratings - we'll have to wait and see whether that is the case - but the trend over the past year has been mainly of don't knows deciding that they do know and they don't like.

    For Johnson, gentle decline, but not much going on really once you exclude his personal (and rally round the flag) Covid bounce.

    Edit: I wish this wasn't so, both for my politics (which, although without much enthusiasm, is more pro-Starmer than pro-Johnson) and for my book (I'd like Starmer to come in a bit more before I - probably - lay off enough to cover my stake as next PM; I'm also on Con majority).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    Absolutely and utterly insane. Totally out of control.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 16,895
    Roger said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I'm distraught that the fortunes of a patron of Conservatives Against Fox hunting should take such a turn.

    Gutted for him.

    Is that true? If so I've changed my opinion of this kind and gentle soul.
    Yes, he's sound on animal welfare - the MP of the leader of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, who rates him highly. Possible to be good at one thing, not so good at another...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    Absolutely and utterly insane. Totally out of control.
    Priti Patel threatening to cut financial support for French policing of our boat migrant problem because of our (exaggerated) boat migrant problem is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1435135116515463171
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 95,999
    edited September 7
    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
  • Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    As long as they are in compounds in Kent and not wandering around northern towns it shouldn't be much of an electoral problem.

    Though we have been assured on PB that Scotland will take any and all such people.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Mr. Royale, almost as if operating a taxi service, providing free food and accommodation, and with a non-contributory welfare system isn't deterring people.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,153

    Roger said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I'm distraught that the fortunes of a patron of Conservatives Against Fox hunting should take such a turn.

    Gutted for him.

    Is that true? If so I've changed my opinion of this kind and gentle soul.
    Yes, he's sound on animal welfare - the MP of the leader of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, who rates him highly. Possible to be good at one thing, not so good at another...
    He has a certain empathy with less intelligent creatures... :wink:
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013

    @darkage you wouldn’t have to build social housing, the councils could simply buy the housing stock from the landlords. Would be cheaper.

    No, I am pretty sure houses spontaneous combust and can never home anyone again whenever a landlord sells one.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    ...Encourging my arse
    To do what ?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 523

    @darkage you wouldn’t have to build social housing, the councils could simply buy the housing stock from the landlords. Would be cheaper.

    A big part of the reason Council's got out of running social housing is that they are hopeless at managing it - they are risk averse, inefficient, subject to byzantine procurement rules along with well meaning but costly transparency and accountability measures, and subject to endless political interference.

    The reality is that private sector landlords are likely to be far more efficient than the Council or any third party it appoints at doing up and renting out knackered old houses.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 3,816
    geoffw said:

    Peter Lilley argues that a government backed private insurance scheme is the care answer:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/07/alternative-tax-funded-care/

    Good simple idea. Why have the clever clogs in the ministries either rejected it or not even considered it (as per Lilley's final paragraph)?

    Because there is no possibility that a government backed private insurance scheme would be simple or remedy the difficulty or not go broke.

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,214

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    SKS ratings are far worse now than a year ago. Encourging my arse
    Only Roger could get it so wrong(Oscars excepted)
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Encourging my arse
    Is that a vegetable-themed variation on "fisting Norman Lamont"?
  • darkage said:

    FPT

    With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.

    As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.

    1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.

    2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.

    3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.

    In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.

    People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.

    In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.

    Nobody is talking about forcing landlords to sell, but they should certainly pay their fair share in taxes which they currently don't. A basic rate taxpayer earning net income from rent is on less than half the marginal net rate of tax than a basic rate taxpayer earning the exact same net income from working. Plus there are negative externalities to homes that are not owner-occupied so there is a reasonable economic argument to have a tax surcharge for such homes - but if people pay their taxes I don't see anyone saying that landlords should be compelled to sell.

    However your point 1 is completely false. If landlords choose to sell then there must be someone who buys as a result, the house isn't demolished. So that could be sold to someone who is currently renting, possibly at a cheaper price since the people seeking to buy are no longer competing with those seeking to use houses as an investment instead, or possibly it could be bought as "social housing" if nobody else seeks to buy it.

    Houses should be built because there's a shortage of housing, not because of the mix of housing, there is no need for social housing to be built first.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    To be ‘fair’ to Lady Patel, the huge crossing yesterday was partly the result of a fortnight of bad British summer weather, with almost no crossings at all. Nonetheless that record headline figure - 1,000 in A DAY - is terrible optics.

    And with a new wave coming, much bigger than ever, it’s not hard to see these numbers doubling, trebling, and so forth. Someone will have to make ugly decisions pretty soon.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 16,895
    darkage said:

    FPT

    With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.

    As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.

    1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.

    2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.

    3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.

    In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.

    People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.

    In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.

    Agreed. I rent by choice and don't see why the Government should try to stop me. The decent end of the private rental market is fine - I dfon't go for expensive places, just OK ones, and I've never had a disagreeable or neglectful landlord. The cheaper urban end of the market is a horrible mess, which is why we need a serious effort at social housing.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 523

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    Absolutely and utterly insane. Totally out of control.
    The seas were calm on the south coast yesterday and beautiful weather- probably explains the high number, you need to view these statistics in terms of annual averages.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
  • Mr. Royale, almost as if operating a taxi service, providing free food and accommodation, and with a non-contributory welfare system isn't deterring people.

    That's the problem.

    Theoretically, we could let people drown or starve and the message would get through to potential migrants eventually. But as a country, we couldn't, could we?

    We could change the basis of the UK's welfare system or have ID cards, but we won't, will we?

    So all the government can do is shout. Which becomes ineffectual pretty quickly.

    Moral: don't make promises that it's not in your power to keep. If you're not sure about this, ask Nick Clegg.

  • IanB2 said:

    It was the big Brexit lie. No, not the £350m a week to spend on the NHS or the “bonfire” of red tape. The lie was that the shambles now enveloping British trade with Europe was an unavoidable price worth paying to leave the EU. That was rubbish.

    Brexit need never have so devastated the British economy. The damage has come from one decision, to depart the single market. The sensible path now would be for Johnson to eat humble pie and seek, as far and as fast as possible, readmission to that market. Britain would imitate the protocol it has agreed for Northern Ireland. This would not mean rejoining the EU, just rejoining Ireland – the most delicious of historical ironies.

    Negotiating the single market in 1987 was Margaret Thatcher’s proudest free-trade achievement. It was in Britain’s and Europe’s interest and proved a success. Johnson reversed that achievement in an act of naked political ambition. He pretended it was necessary for Brexit. It was his biggest lie.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/06/boris-johnsons-biggest-lie-europe-coming-home-single-market

    What was the UK trade balance with the EU in the single market ?
    The ONS has data from 1999 onwards:

    UK trade balance with EU -£895bn

    UK trade balance with non-EU +309bn

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/l86i/pnbp

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/l86j/ukea
    Reposting this to ask a question.

    Does anyone know why the UK's trade balance with non EU countries has improved so much ?

    In 2000 the UK had a higher trade deficit was with non EU countries but that faded away in the following decade and from 2011 onwards the UK has been running a large trade surplus with non EU countries.
  • darkage said:

    FPT

    With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.

    As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.

    1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.

    2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.

    3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.

    In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.

    People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.

    In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.

    Agreed. I rent by choice and don't see why the Government should try to stop me. The decent end of the private rental market is fine - I dfon't go for expensive places, just OK ones, and I've never had a disagreeable or neglectful landlord. The cheaper urban end of the market is a horrible mess, which is why we need a serious effort at social housing.
    I have no qualms with the rental market or landlords either, but do you think its appropriate that landlords are paying considerably less tax for their income than somebody working for a living is?

    A problem reportedly going to made even worse today.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Hitler's big mistake was not developing and mass producing snow making machines.

    He could have dropped snow in the UK and that would have stopped the country whilst Unternehmen Seelöwe went ahead successfully.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,153
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Biden? Is he that old?

    Oh, you mean the other Uncle Joe, the less cuddly one! :wink:
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,469
    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 16,895



    I have no qualms with the rental market or landlords either, but do you think its appropriate that landlords are paying considerably less tax for their income than somebody working for a living is?

    A problem reportedly going to made even worse today.

    No, I agree with you.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,116
    edited September 7
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Wasn't involved when that was likely.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,386
    Dura_Ace said:

    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.

    Reminds me of the only time I had a tooth extracted. The dentist pushed and pulled for a while, finally dragging the damn thing out and then said, maybe we should have used some anaesthetic... Too right, I said...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353

    Mr. Royale, almost as if operating a taxi service, providing free food and accommodation, and with a non-contributory welfare system isn't deterring people.

    That's the problem.

    Theoretically, we could let people drown or starve and the message would get through to potential migrants eventually. But as a country, we couldn't, could we?

    We could change the basis of the UK's welfare system or have ID cards, but we won't, will we?

    So all the government can do is shout. Which becomes ineffectual pretty quickly.

    Moral: don't make promises that it's not in your power to keep. If you're not sure about this, ask Nick Clegg.

    Countries can’t or won’t do ruthless or unwanted things… until they have to

    France has introduced vaxports for everywhere. A young unvaxed female friend of mine was kicked out of a cafe in Avignon yesterday. No vaxport, no croissant.

    These vaxports would have been unthinkable 3 years ago, but dire circumstances forced them, and here they are. And the French accept them (and they work, in terms of vaccine uptake)

    I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.

    We are a long long way from that, of course. And hopefully we will never get there.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 523

    darkage said:

    FPT

    With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.

    As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.

    1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.

    2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.

    3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.

    In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.

    People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.

    In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.

    Nobody is talking about forcing landlords to sell, but they should certainly pay their fair share in taxes which they currently don't. A basic rate taxpayer earning net income from rent is on less than half the marginal net rate of tax than a basic rate taxpayer earning the exact same net income from working. Plus there are negative externalities to homes that are not owner-occupied so there is a reasonable economic argument to have a tax surcharge for such homes - but if people pay their taxes I don't see anyone saying that landlords should be compelled to sell.

    However your point 1 is completely false. If landlords choose to sell then there must be someone who buys as a result, the house isn't demolished. So that could be sold to someone who is currently renting, possibly at a cheaper price since the people seeking to buy are no longer competing with those seeking to use houses as an investment instead, or possibly it could be bought as "social housing" if nobody else seeks to buy it.

    Houses should be built because there's a shortage of housing, not because of the mix of housing, there is no need for social housing to be built first.
    If a pregnant, single mother with young children turns up at the Council at risk of homelessness, and there is no Council housing available - the Council have a moral and statutory duty to house them. And the Council rely on private sector landlords for this. And private sector landlords are leaving the market due to regulation and tax, which you think should increase. So what is your solution exactly?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Dura_Ace said:

    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.

    Look, alcohol has been tested to death on animals. Presumably you drink that because it wasn't developed that way, so can't you explain your philosophy and ask for naturally occurring opiates on the same basis? I find the one consolation of growing old and ill is, the NHS will give you pharma grade class As at the drop of a hat.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 28,980

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Hitler's big mistake was not developing and mass producing snow making machines.

    He could have dropped snow in the UK and that would have stopped the country whilst Unternehmen Seelöwe went ahead successfully.
    If the Abwehr had got their act together and identified the merchant ships carrying the tea for the U boats to target, game over.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Selebian said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Biden? Is he that old?

    Oh, you mean the other Uncle Joe, the less cuddly one! :wink:
    It's well known Biden ducked out of D Day. Asthma.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353
    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    its only a danger if farage pushes back the lid of his sarcophagus and rises ti launch another english nationalist political party. until that happens the tories dont have to give a fuck about it because labour will say and do nothing on the issue.
    Or another Farage ascends. The political space is opening.

    Shame to hear about your wrist. Do try not to kill yourself. Do you not have pain meds because of the animal-testing thing?!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,116
    edited September 7

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Hitler's big mistake was not developing and mass producing snow making machines.

    He could have dropped snow in the UK and that would have stopped the country whilst Unternehmen Seelöwe went ahead successfully.
    No, that's nowadays. For example, remember going to school every day during 1947's Big Freeze.
    Would that happen today.
    What's more drove to work every day in similar conditions in January 1963, taking my teacher wife to her school en route.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,327
    algarkirk said:

    geoffw said:

    Peter Lilley argues that a government backed private insurance scheme is the care answer:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/07/alternative-tax-funded-care/

    Good simple idea. Why have the clever clogs in the ministries either rejected it or not even considered it (as per Lilley's final paragraph)?

    Because there is no possibility that a government backed private insurance scheme would be simple or remedy the difficulty or not go broke.

    I don't see why a government backed insurance scheme would go broke. Nor why it can't be simpler than what we have now.
    Anyway Andrew Dilnot sounded quietly confident that at least some of his proposals of over ten years ago might be brought in.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,469
    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.

    Look, alcohol has been tested to death on animals. Presumably you drink that because it wasn't developed that way, so can't you explain your philosophy and ask for naturally occurring opiates on the same basis? .
    why would you presume that? i havent touched alcohol since i was 19. i did take fucking loads of peds (pills and injectables) when i was a semi serious competitive cyclist but that was decades ago. #straightedge ever since
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,116
    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.

    Look, alcohol has been tested to death on animals. Presumably you drink that because it wasn't developed that way, so can't you explain your philosophy and ask for naturally occurring opiates on the same basis? I find the one consolation of growing old and ill is, the NHS will give you pharma grade class As at the drop of a hat.
    Remember being taught how to extract opium from opium poppies as part of the course 65 years or so ago. Could probably still do it if I had the poppies and did a bit of trawling of the memory.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    edited September 7

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Wasn't involved when that was likely.
    Indeed, and the UK under Chamberlain et al had just almost started a war with the USSR over Finland ...

    [edit] but yes, the Eastern Front more than distracted the Fuehrer from Seeloewe Ausf. 2 in 1941-2.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,626
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Dura_Ace said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.

    Look, alcohol has been tested to death on animals. Presumably you drink that because it wasn't developed that way, so can't you explain your philosophy and ask for naturally occurring opiates on the same basis? .
    why would you presume that? i havent touched alcohol since i was 19. i did take fucking loads of peds (pills and injectables) when i was a semi serious competitive cyclist but that was decades ago. #straightedge ever since
    OK but the principle applies to other things. A small part of the air you breathe has been previously breathed by pit canaries. So what's the problem with heroin?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
    I wasn't 100% serious, and Hitler decided to invade Russia in December 1940, not vice versa.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,469
    Leon said:



    I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.

    there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across

    look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,308
    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning.
    By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
    I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,116
    edited September 7

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
    As Mr Carnyx pointed out at or about the same time we were close to war with the Soviet Union over Finland. Where, insanely, we could have been allied with Germany.
    Might have turned out better for the Finns, of course.
  • Phillip Thompson please explain why you think a basic rate landlord would have a lower marginal rate of tax than anybody else. As far as I know rent less genuine allowable expense are taxed at the same rate as everybody else.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013

    Phillip Thompson please explain why you think a basic rate landlord would have a lower marginal rate of tax than anybody else. As far as I know rent less genuine allowable expense are taxed at the same rate as everybody else.

    NI
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    Justin Trudeau hit by gravel thrown by protestors at a campaign stop in Ontario
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58472456
  • darkage said:

    FPT

    With regard to landlords, which has been discussed this morning.

    As I see it, there are several problems with forcing private landlords to sell their houses.

    1. Council's rely on private landlords to house vulnerable people due to the lack of social housing. If they sell up, you create a homelessness crisis. So before you pursued this policy, you would need to build a lot more social housing.

    2. A large part of the housing market is made up of people who rent by choice. There are any number of reasons why, but enormous transaction costs, risks and delays of actually trying to buy a property is one, you might need a temporary second home for work or really for any number of other reasons, which means buying is not suitable.

    3. A large number of people will not be eligible for assistance from the Council (ie fall under category #1 above), but will have no hope of obtaining mortgage finance. This can be for any number of reasons, but they could be bankrupt, they could have just got out of prison, they could be unable to work due to disability, they could just be hopeless with money. This group of people will always exist, will comprise a sizeable number of the population, and cannot be imagined or willed out of existence.

    In the absence of either social housing, of which we have very little due to three plus decades of government policy, or a significant amount of large scale businesses providing rented accommodation; private landlords are undeniably providing an important social function. They are also taking risks and essentially running a business, as one poster pointed out, and in doing so making a significant contribution to the economy as they renovate and manage properties. It makes little sense to me that they should be excluded in principle from operating in the market due to the fact that they are small businesses rather than large businesses.

    People who think that the problem can all be solved through council house building don't understand the scale of the problem. The amount of social housing you would need to build to cover scenarios 1,2 and 3 would be enormous, it would require something like a 10 year plan. And I am not sure that Council house building is even desirable, other than to house the most vulnerable and certain categories of key workers in high house price areas.

    In conclusion, there is no need at all to ruin this sector of the economy in the ideological pursuit of boosting home ownership. There are other, and better ways that affordability issues can be addressed.

    Nobody is talking about forcing landlords to sell, but they should certainly pay their fair share in taxes which they currently don't. A basic rate taxpayer earning net income from rent is on less than half the marginal net rate of tax than a basic rate taxpayer earning the exact same net income from working. Plus there are negative externalities to homes that are not owner-occupied so there is a reasonable economic argument to have a tax surcharge for such homes - but if people pay their taxes I don't see anyone saying that landlords should be compelled to sell.

    However your point 1 is completely false. If landlords choose to sell then there must be someone who buys as a result, the house isn't demolished. So that could be sold to someone who is currently renting, possibly at a cheaper price since the people seeking to buy are no longer competing with those seeking to use houses as an investment instead, or possibly it could be bought as "social housing" if nobody else seeks to buy it.

    Houses should be built because there's a shortage of housing, not because of the mix of housing, there is no need for social housing to be built first.
    sorry meant to post the quote earlier
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 28,980
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
    I wasn't 100% serious, and Hitler decided to invade Russia in December 1940, not vice versa.
    First (& probably not last) pedantry of the day

    June 1941
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,469
    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.

    Look, alcohol has been tested to death on animals. Presumably you drink that because it wasn't developed that way, so can't you explain your philosophy and ask for naturally occurring opiates on the same basis? .
    why would you presume that? i havent touched alcohol since i was 19. i did take fucking loads of peds (pills and injectables) when i was a semi serious competitive cyclist but that was decades ago. #straightedge ever since
    OK but the principle applies to other things. A small part of the air you breathe has been previously breathed by pit canaries. So what's the problem with heroin?
    its a matter of scale and degree. sorry not sorry if my personal boundaries make no sense to you
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923

    Phillip Thompson please explain why you think a basic rate landlord would have a lower marginal rate of tax than anybody else. As far as I know rent less genuine allowable expense are taxed at the same rate as everybody else.

    NI
    Is it also possible to set up a limited company and pay yourself in dividends? Or simply capital growth? The dividends alone would be tax free for a person to the tune of £2K pa (assuming they don't push you above the higher rate limit).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353
    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:



    I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.

    there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across

    look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
    Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.

    Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.

    Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
    I wasn't 100% serious, and Hitler decided to invade Russia in December 1940, not vice versa.
    First (& probably not last) pedantry of the day

    June 1941
    I think he meant 'decided' rather than 'implemented'?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 7
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning.
    By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
    I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
    Burnham is Labour's only chance to regain the Red Wall in my view, otherwise the best Starmer can hope for is win a few of the most marginal Tory seats on Labour's target list and hope the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats in the South and the SNP pick up most of the remaining Tory seats in Scotland to force a hung parliament in 2024 where he would then likely become PM.

    Even the DUP would probably not back Boris now unless he removed the border in the Irish Sea so Boris needs another Tory majority to stay PM
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 28,980
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
    I wasn't 100% serious, and Hitler decided to invade Russia in December 1940, not vice versa.
    First (& probably not last) pedantry of the day

    June 1941
    I think he meant 'decided' rather than 'implemented'?
    I would have thought that was part of the plan from the 1920s.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353
    HYUFD said:

    Justin Trudeau hit by gravel thrown by protestors at a campaign stop in Ontario
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58472456

    That’s such a brilliantly lame-ass Canadian protest. In proper countries they throw bombs, punches, or eggs. Or custard pies

    Gravel?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735
    .
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning.
    By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
    I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
    Which suggests why he's favourite to succeed Starmer.
    While it's not easy to work out the precise route, the fact that his more credible opponents are effectively gagged by being in the shadow cabinet gives him a significant advantage.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,323
    Leon said:

    Mr. Royale, almost as if operating a taxi service, providing free food and accommodation, and with a non-contributory welfare system isn't deterring people.

    That's the problem.

    Theoretically, we could let people drown or starve and the message would get through to potential migrants eventually. But as a country, we couldn't, could we?

    We could change the basis of the UK's welfare system or have ID cards, but we won't, will we?

    So all the government can do is shout. Which becomes ineffectual pretty quickly.

    Moral: don't make promises that it's not in your power to keep. If you're not sure about this, ask Nick Clegg.

    Countries can’t or won’t do ruthless or unwanted things… until they have to

    France has introduced vaxports for everywhere. A young unvaxed female friend of mine was kicked out of a cafe in Avignon yesterday. No vaxport, no croissant.

    These vaxports would have been unthinkable 3 years ago, but dire circumstances forced them, and here they are. And the French accept them (and they work, in terms of vaccine uptake)

    I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.

    We are a long long way from that, of course. And hopefully we will never get there.
    I think the more likely solution is rounding them up with automatic refusal of asylum and imprisonment until they tell us where they want a 1 way ticket to. Hostile environment worked for Australia.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    edited September 7
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
    I wasn't 100% serious, and Hitler decided to invade Russia in December 1940, not vice versa.
    First (& probably not last) pedantry of the day

    June 1941
    I think he meant 'decided' rather than 'implemented'?
    Correct. December 18, 1940, Directive No. 21: Operation Barbarossa.
    ETA people don't learn from history. 1. Don't march on Moscow 2. If you have to, don't start in June because where that put you in December?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,116
    edited September 7
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:



    I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.

    there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across

    look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
    Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.

    Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.

    Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
    Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,626
    HYUFD said:

    Justin Trudeau hit by gravel thrown by protestors at a campaign stop in Ontario
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58472456

    Are they chipping away at his popularity?
  • MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning.
    By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
    I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
    That makes more sense than you voting LibDem - the party of triple lock pensions, tripling tuition fees, unrestricted immigration and nimbyism.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Dura_Ace said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    broke my other wrist. fireblade totalled, had it 'aligned' (wiry filipino nurse pulling like fuck on it) without pain meds. fuckin intense.

    Look, alcohol has been tested to death on animals. Presumably you drink that because it wasn't developed that way, so can't you explain your philosophy and ask for naturally occurring opiates on the same basis? .
    why would you presume that? i havent touched alcohol since i was 19. i did take fucking loads of peds (pills and injectables) when i was a semi serious competitive cyclist but that was decades ago. #straightedge ever since
    OK but the principle applies to other things. A small part of the air you breathe has been previously breathed by pit canaries. So what's the problem with heroin?
    its a matter of scale and degree. sorry not sorry if my personal boundaries make no sense to you
    OK. None of my business obvs.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning.
    By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
    I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
    That makes more sense than you voting LibDem - the party of triple lock pensions, tripling tuition fees, unrestricted immigration and nimbyism.
    That is all the parties. The differences being simply how much they dissemble on each point.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 7

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning.
    By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
    I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
    That makes more sense than you voting LibDem - the party of triple lock pensions, tripling tuition fees, unrestricted immigration and nimbyism.
    He is well off and posh though like most LD voters, the LDs are the really posh party now
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355
    Dura_Ace said:

    look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this

    The same is true for the whole cabinet.

    If BoZo cared about education, Gav would be gone.

    If he cared about the Foreign Office, Raab would be gone.

    If he cared about Health, Hancock would have had plenty of time for hanky panky
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    its only a danger if farage pushes back the lid of his sarcophagus and rises ti launch another english nationalist political party. until that happens the tories dont have to give a fuck about it because labour will say and do nothing on the issue.
    And, that's what keeps the Tories in office.

    Blair would outflank.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    edited September 7
    Mr. Eagles, interesting. I didn't know the German for 'Operation' was 'Undertaking'.

    Edited extra bit: I was amused earlier this year to discover their word for tortoise means 'shield toad'.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 523
    edited September 7
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:



    I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.

    there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across

    look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
    Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.

    Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.

    Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
    I would agree that you are potentially talking about a few years time, on the current trajectory - ie: the next general election.

    Where is this Putin figure going to come from? That is an interesting question. With the way communications are controlled these days, I don't see a path.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Hitler's big mistake was not developing and mass producing snow making machines.

    He could have dropped snow in the UK and that would have stopped the country whilst Unternehmen Seelöwe went ahead successfully.
    No, that's nowadays. For example, remember going to school every day during 1947's Big Freeze.
    Would that happen today.
    What's more drove to work every day in similar conditions in January 1963, taking my teacher wife to her school en route.
    Not so much traffic back then, though.
    Now we all travel at the speed of the least competent.
    The 47 snowdrifts were something else, judging by my mum's old photos.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,386
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Uncle joe declared war on Hitler to help us did he? No, he happily carved up Poland with them and only did anything when they got invaded.
    I wasn't 100% serious, and Hitler decided to invade Russia in December 1940, not vice versa.
    First (& probably not last) pedantry of the day

    June 1941
    I think he meant 'decided' rather than 'implemented'?
    Correct. December 18, 1940, Directive No. 21: Operation Barbarossa.
    ETA people don't learn from history. 1. Don't march on Moscow 2. If you have to, don't start in June because where that put you in December?
    Of course the June start was delayed from may because of the Greece issue. Consequences.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.

    Burnham was on manoeuvres this morning.
    By coming out with a coherent alternative to the government plan, and arguing for it in ways which might resonate with some of the angry Tories on this issue, he's effectively pointed out what a policy vacuum Starmer is.
    I'd vote for Labour if Burnham was leader. I'd trust him not to sell out Brexit as well as understanding that working people are struggling right now.
    Burnham is Labour's only chance to regain the Red Wall in my view, otherwise the best Starmer can hope for is win a few of the most marginal Tory seats on Labour's target list and hope the LDs pick up enough Tory Remain seats in the South and the SNP pick up most of the remaining Tory seats in Scotland to force a hung parliament in 2024 where he would then likely become PM.

    Even the DUP would probably not back Boris now unless he removed the border in the Irish Sea so Boris needs another Tory majority to stay PM
    It feels fairly obvious that Burnham would be better than Starmer at appealing to older red wall voters, even if they had the same policy platforms. What is interesting is if he can also get traction with Tory 30-50 somethings in the south east as well. I think the more we see of shambolic government over the next few years, the easier it will be for Labour to target such voters. Labour are missing a trick if they don't come down hard on the side of workers vs pensioners from this policy.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    Mr. Eagles, interesting. I didn't know the German for 'Operation' was 'Undertaking'.

    Edited extra bit: I was amused earlier this year to discover their word for tortoise means 'shield toad'.

    Also a bit interesting that sea lion comes out as sea lion. They aren't that obviously leonine.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,116
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Hitler's big mistake was not developing and mass producing snow making machines.

    He could have dropped snow in the UK and that would have stopped the country whilst Unternehmen Seelöwe went ahead successfully.
    No, that's nowadays. For example, remember going to school every day during 1947's Big Freeze.
    Would that happen today.
    What's more drove to work every day in similar conditions in January 1963, taking my teacher wife to her school en route.
    Not so much traffic back then, though.
    Now we all travel at the speed of the least competent.
    The 47 snowdrifts were something else, judging by my mum's old photos.
    Roads were narrower! Had to drive along the only open road from N Manchester into Yorkshire. Queues could be amazing.
    There were more trains of course, and a lot more freight ones.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    These Channel crossings makes you proud to be British and it should make you proud to be a Brexiteer.

    Think about it, people are fleeing France (which is in the EU) to come Brexit Britain.

    What's not to love?
    Makes you think Unternehmen Seelöwe would have been a walkover, mind. We owe a lot to Uncle Joe.
    Hitler's big mistake was not developing and mass producing snow making machines.

    He could have dropped snow in the UK and that would have stopped the country whilst Unternehmen Seelöwe went ahead successfully.
    No, that's nowadays. For example, remember going to school every day during 1947's Big Freeze.
    Would that happen today.
    What's more drove to work every day in similar conditions in January 1963, taking my teacher wife to her school en route.
    Not so much traffic back then, though.
    Now we all travel at the speed of the least competent.
    The 47 snowdrifts were something else, judging by my mum's old photos.
    The 47 snowdrifts - sequel to the 39 steppes?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,147

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:



    I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.

    there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across

    look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
    Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.

    Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.

    Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
    Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
    You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,153

    Leon said:

    Diverse take: a bigger danger to HMG is not a quasi-botched tax rise, but the 1,000 illegal immigrants who crossed the Channel yesterday, a new record.

    Absolutely and utterly insane. Totally out of control.
    Harsh - I thought it was actually one of Leon's more lucid comments :wink:
Sign In or Register to comment.