Howdy, Stranger!

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

The German election looks very tight – politicalbetting.com

123468

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 17,741
    Chameleon said:

    FT reporting that the treasury is considering lowering the student loan repayment threshold to below 20k. If that goes through this government will have cut my take home pay as a new grad by ~£150/month between that and the NI tax hike.

    The treasury desperately needs some young people in it, if so they'd cotton on to just how deeply popular, and fiscally beneficial putting pensioners into the thunderdome would be.

    It’s not the treasury that needs to understand that it’s the Labour Party.

    Want to bring voters back stop taxing workers and start taxing (unearnt) wealth
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    Then why is your party raising all the taxes mate?
    They aren't, NI is not a tax it is National Insurance, income tax and IHT are not going up
    Yet
    IFS calls NI a "tax". So I don't think @HYUFD is correct.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,696

    Rayner is a bit AOC isn't she?

    Looks like self-promotion wise she has played a blinder this weekend.

    Last 2 Saturday Times, big profile Wes Streeting, big profile Angela Rayner, both overt personal promo pieces. We make of this what we will.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
  • eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DW now projecting Die Linke to get 4.9%.

    https://www.dw.com/en/media-center/live-tv/s-100825

    But die Linke wil probably get 3 Direktmandate so be allowed their national %ge of seats.
    Word on the street is they may only get two, which would reduce them to a couple bumps in the Bundestag.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,306
    Quincel said:

    Holy cow: Berliners have voted for this law to seize at 'well below market rates' over 200k properties from corporate landlords. The ballot is non-binding and the law may well be unconstitutional, but a dramatic moment nonetheless.

    https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-faces-expropriation-vote-what-happens-if-the-people-say-yes/a-59070328

    They've clearly been taking political advice from the missus.
    Baulked at the executions, mind. Lightweights.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    Quincel said:

    Holy cow: Berliners have voted for this law to seize at 'well below market rates' over 200k properties from corporate landlords. The ballot is non-binding and the law may well be unconstitutional, but a dramatic moment nonetheless.

    https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-faces-expropriation-vote-what-happens-if-the-people-say-yes/a-59070328

    Fake news, There has been no information about this referendum. Even as a lefty ( but not a Linke) I voted against this as it is not the right way to go about unfair high rents.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
  • kinabalu said:

    Rayner is a bit AOC isn't she?

    Looks like self-promotion wise she has played a blinder this weekend.

    Last 2 Saturday Times, big profile Wes Streeting, big profile Angela Rayner, both overt personal promo pieces. We make of this what we will.
    I'm not referring to the 'standard' ways to get puffed up in the media with a weekend interview. I mean the stuff that gets social media on fire and therefore the main media has to follow up next day invariably e.g. scumgate.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,306
    MikeL said:

    After 159/299 seats:

    CDU/CSU 30.0
    SPD 26.4

    Is that right? Seems contrary to narrative?

    https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html

    Think a lot of Bavaria reported early.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,659
    eristdoof said:

    Quincel said:

    Holy cow: Berliners have voted for this law to seize at 'well below market rates' over 200k properties from corporate landlords. The ballot is non-binding and the law may well be unconstitutional, but a dramatic moment nonetheless.

    https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-faces-expropriation-vote-what-happens-if-the-people-say-yes/a-59070328

    Fake news, There has been no information about this referendum. Even as a lefty ( but not a Linke) I voted against this as it is not the right way to go about unfair high rents.
    Looks like it passed:

    https://twitter.com/dwenteignen/status/1442220844521070592
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,328
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT Re Jimmy Saville.
    He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive.
    Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep.
    But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us.
    Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.

    His fundamental weirdness was hidden in plain sight. You’d never go near a random who looked like that in the street, but because he was Jimmy Saville, somehow he was ok. I’d love to know the full truth of who new what about him. I know attitudes have changed, and for the better, but you’d have to think some who knew what he did wish they’d tried to do something back then.
    Sex with young groupies was considered a bit of a perk in those days, in a way we would not tolerate now.
    It should not have been 'tolerated' then. The Summer of Love and the swinging sixties have a great deal to answer for. It was often great for men; less so for women.

    On a related note: how the heck is John Peel still revered?
    Indeed, his marriage to an underage American has faded into history, alongside his Seventies slot "Schoolgirl of the week". That many of his groupies were young, and indeed underage is not something he has ever hidden, and while she was 15 he did actually marry her.

    http://andywalmsley.blogspot.com/2014/10/peel-reveals.html?m=1

    I think the difference is one of scale, but also of emphasis. Peel had a transparent excellence at spotting new musical trends that transcends his sexual misbehaviour. His evening show in the Eighties was a cornucopia of the brilliant and the avant garde alongside stuff like The Fall, which no matter how much I listen, I cannot get.
    Cor. Did you really mean that.

    Paedophilia is “sexual misbehaviour”

    His ability to spot good music transcends it?

    FFS

    And Ezra Pound was just funky with his Fascism. As was Dali. And D'Annunzio.

    One can only imagine what would happen in Mao had been a poet of note.... Or Hitler a genius painter.....

    Yes, but Peel was fairly typical of his time in the music business. There are fairly well authenticated similar stories about David Bowie with a 14 year old for example. Plenty more with still living musicians too, which I shall not mention but easy to find if you look, including some of the biggest names of British music.

    My point was that some things considered wrong now were not then (and vice versa too).

    It is like cancelling Churchill because he was a racist and white supremacist, or Orwell for anti-semitism and homophobia. None of these were unusual views for their time.

    I am not saying that John Peels musical influence permits such behaviour, so much as saying that life was different back then, and that plenty of historical figures did things that would be considered very differently if done today.
    The age of consent was not 14 in the Sixties and Seventies, was it?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    Then why is your party raising all the taxes mate?
    They aren't, NI is not a tax it is National Insurance, income tax and IHT are not going up
    Yet
    They aren't, Tory voters would defect en masse to RefUK in the home counties and London if IHT went up or stay at home at the next election. Thus bang goes the Tory majority.

    Boris knows that and would sack Sunak if he tried, he will not repeat the disaster of May's dementia tax that lost her her majority
    Another keeper
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,101
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    The vast majority of people don't inherit much.

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-8522389/Parents-secretly-plan-leave-bigger-inheritance-children-expect.html

    "...recent government statistics show the average inheritance is £11,000, but among those aged 55-64 it is £33,000 and among over-65s it is £20,000."
  • eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DW now projecting Die Linke to get 4.9%.

    https://www.dw.com/en/media-center/live-tv/s-100825

    But die Linke wil probably get 3 Direktmandate so be allowed their national %ge of seats.
    Word on the street is they may only get two, which would reduce them to a couple bumps in the Bundestag.
    EDIT - But just saw upthred you're a Berliner. So what are you hearing?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,384

    MikeL said:

    After 159/299 seats:

    CDU/CSU 30.0
    SPD 26.4

    Is that right? Seems contrary to narrative?

    https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html

    The headline figures are done on the list vote. I think the numbers you quote is the constituency vote.
    Thanks - yes - I see now.

    Not sure why there is such a big difference between the two votes?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    To a large extent - particularly in London - this has been caused by the property market being inflated by people buying property on the back of family money.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
    It is taking the family home.

    I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.

    The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.

    https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    Then why is your party raising all the taxes mate?
    They aren't, NI is not a tax it is National Insurance, income tax and IHT are not going up
    Yet
    IFS calls NI a "tax". So I don't think @HYUFD is correct.
    It is a tax
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    Andy_JS said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DW now projecting Die Linke to get 4.9%.

    https://www.dw.com/en/media-center/live-tv/s-100825

    But die Linke wil probably get 3 Direktmandate so be allowed their national %ge of seats.
    Someone earlier was reporting they'd done badly in their "safe seats" in Berlin. Not sure if that's still the case.
    Well as Berlin seems to be counting slowly (the have lots of different elections on the same day) it is not easy to know, but on the TV earlier and in the German press, it seems that they are not worried. They might not get those safe seats, but the best guess at the moment is that they will. Also all the coalition possibilitiy graphics are assuming that die Linke will around 5% be in the Bundestag, not just 2 seats.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,807
    .
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    How did council house sales improve social mobility? I am sure you have a raft of dubious evidence, but anecdotally I don't see it. Unless by social mobility you mean as home owners they became Conservatives.

    And don't get me started on Grammar Schools. I went to a s*** one.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    The vast majority of people don't inherit much.

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-8522389/Parents-secretly-plan-leave-bigger-inheritance-children-expect.html

    "...recent government statistics show the average inheritance is £11,000, but among those aged 55-64 it is £33,000 and among over-65s it is £20,000."
    IHT should be completely abolished, and any money received simply taxed as income. Which should include NI too as that should be merged with income tax.

    It is repugnant to say that an inheritance is less worthy of being taxed than money actually worked for.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,343
    edited September 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT Re Jimmy Saville.
    He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive.
    Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep.
    But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us.
    Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.

    As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
    That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.

    At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.

    As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.

    If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.

    You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
  • HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    And I think what polling on this we have the general population back on on this Big G.

    However, where HY might be right, an important section of Tory support may be in the oppose column?
    As long as it keeps them in their seats they will not complain but what @HYUFD is blinded on, is that the country have moved as a body left wanting more covid regulations and lockdowns if necessary and absolutely spending on the NHS and social care, and listening to him at the UN he is really pushing climate change for all its worth which is very much today's topic

    For all his faults, Boris understands this and is moving onto that agenda and if some of his right wingers complain then he will just carry on anyway
    59% of voters think inheritance tax is unfair, including 67% of Conservative voters, it is the most unpopular tax there is

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/03/19/inheritance-tax-most-unfair
    It is the correct thing to do and you may find Rishi does the right thing
    The thing is that you're both right.

    More tax has got to come from somewhere, and wealth rather than incomes is the clear way to do it.

    But it will also make the Conservative core vote very unhappy bunnies.

    So BoJo can either make himself unpopular quickly (with even more tax rises) or slowly (as the fiscal wheels fall off).

    Which is more likely?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,774
    edited September 2021
    edit
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
    It is taking the family home.

    I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.

    The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.

    https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

    Rewarding hard work is supposed to be a core Tory principle.

    If you don't think it is, you can shove your core principles where the sun doesn't shine.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,632
    Chameleon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    Then why is your party raising all the taxes mate?
    They aren't, NI is not a tax it is National Insurance, income tax and IHT are not going up
    Income tax thresholds are frozen, inflation is positive (~5%) = Tax rise

    IHT thresholds frozen, = Tax rise

    Cap gains frozen = Tax rise

    Studen loan threshold plummeting = Tax rise

    NI rising = Tax rise^2

    The Tories aren't content with just raising all the taxes, so they're inventing whole new ones!
    They are attempting to balance the books, and much As I hate tax, (all tax is theft) its still better than borrowing.

    We have borrowed so much money in the last year that the numbers are eye watering, all with the opposition and media encouragement. and its achieved virtually nothing, delayed some cases but ultimately very little.

    It would be much better to cut spending but cancel HS2 maybe, stop subsidising pointless university courses, privatise a few bits, and deregulate the economy, but we won't.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    Laschet might well not get a seat in the Bundestag. He is not standing in a constituency and the CDU are predicted not to get any "list candidates" elected in his state. But he might still be chosen to be chancellor.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,659
    Andy_JS said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DW now projecting Die Linke to get 4.9%.

    https://www.dw.com/en/media-center/live-tv/s-100825

    But die Linke wil probably get 3 Direktmandate so be allowed their national %ge of seats.
    Word on the street is they may only get two, which would reduce them to a couple bumps in the Bundestag.
    The boffins on the VoteUK forum seem to be saying that they're going to get 3 but because 2 are in Berlin and 1 elsewhere they won't get any bonus seats. You need 3 in the same area.
    Are you cheating on us? ;)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    The vast majority of people don't inherit much.

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-8522389/Parents-secretly-plan-leave-bigger-inheritance-children-expect.html

    "...recent government statistics show the average inheritance is £11,000, but among those aged 55-64 it is £33,000 and among over-65s it is £20,000."
    That actually gives the average inheritance as £125,000. The AVERAGE voter in the South East and London will now get an inheritance above the IHT thereshold because of property prices there not just the rich. As the article says the number receiving a sizeable inheritance will rise significantly, especially in areas with high property prices
  • If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?
  • With 189 of 299 constituencies counted, but zilch from Berlin, die Linke is a 4.3% in national 2nd vote share.

    So they live or die based on Berlin results.
  • Andy_JS said:

    edit

    Not necessary for them to be in the same area.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,774
    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DW now projecting Die Linke to get 4.9%.

    https://www.dw.com/en/media-center/live-tv/s-100825

    But die Linke wil probably get 3 Direktmandate so be allowed their national %ge of seats.
    Word on the street is they may only get two, which would reduce them to a couple bumps in the Bundestag.
    The boffins on the VoteUK forum seem to be saying that they're going to get 3 but because 2 are in Berlin and 1 elsewhere they won't get any bonus seats. You need 3 in the same area.
    Are you cheating on us? ;)
    I've edited that post because I'm not sure it's correct. Always seems to be confusion on this issue, even amongst the experts.
  • kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT Re Jimmy Saville.
    He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive.
    Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep.
    But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us.
    Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.

    As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
    That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.

    At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.

    As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.

    If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.

    You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
    Well said. A woman who has been abused may share her experience.

    A man who abuses others almost certainly does not share their experience.

    I don't know of anyone who has done anything to "blow the whistle" on. Not a single thing. Now if Cyclefree is saying that its happened but I wasn't aware of it . . . well how could I blow the whistle if I'm not aware of it?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DW now projecting Die Linke to get 4.9%.

    https://www.dw.com/en/media-center/live-tv/s-100825

    But die Linke wil probably get 3 Direktmandate so be allowed their national %ge of seats.
    Word on the street is they may only get two, which would reduce them to a couple bumps in the Bundestag.
    The boffins on the VoteUK forum seem to be saying that they're going to get 3 but because 2 are in Berlin and 1 elsewhere they won't get any bonus seats. You need 3 in the same area.
    Are you cheating on us? ;)
    Yes he was. He has already deleted it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,659
    Andy_JS said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DW now projecting Die Linke to get 4.9%.

    https://www.dw.com/en/media-center/live-tv/s-100825

    But die Linke wil probably get 3 Direktmandate so be allowed their national %ge of seats.
    Word on the street is they may only get two, which would reduce them to a couple bumps in the Bundestag.
    The boffins on the VoteUK forum seem to be saying that they're going to get 3 but because 2 are in Berlin and 1 elsewhere they won't get any bonus seats. You need 3 in the same area.
    Are you cheating on us? ;)
    I've edited that post because I'm not sure it's correct. Always seems to be confusion on this issue, even amongst the experts.
    Yes, it is quite a complicated voting system.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
    It is taking the family home.

    I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.

    The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.

    https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

    Rewarding hard work is supposed to be a core Tory principle.

    If you don't think it is, you can shove your core principles where the sun doesn't shine.
    That is as much a liberal as a conservative principle. The Liberal Party was often the party of shifting tax from income to wealth in the 19th century and early 20th century, the Labour Party the party of increasing both income and inheritance tax.

    Preserving estates and inheritance however has always been a conservative principle since the Tory party was founded in the late 17th century.

    That is why I am a Tory and you are a classical Liberal
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    RobD said:

    eristdoof said:

    Quincel said:

    Holy cow: Berliners have voted for this law to seize at 'well below market rates' over 200k properties from corporate landlords. The ballot is non-binding and the law may well be unconstitutional, but a dramatic moment nonetheless.

    https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-faces-expropriation-vote-what-happens-if-the-people-say-yes/a-59070328

    Fake news, There has been no information about this referendum. Even as a lefty ( but not a Linke) I voted against this as it is not the right way to go about unfair high rents.
    Looks like it passed:

    https://twitter.com/dwenteignen/status/1442220844521070592
    Well they would claim that, that is the group that brought the referendum. There is no official news yet.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    UK R

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    edited September 2021
    UK case summary

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,659
    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    eristdoof said:

    Quincel said:

    Holy cow: Berliners have voted for this law to seize at 'well below market rates' over 200k properties from corporate landlords. The ballot is non-binding and the law may well be unconstitutional, but a dramatic moment nonetheless.

    https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-faces-expropriation-vote-what-happens-if-the-people-say-yes/a-59070328

    Fake news, There has been no information about this referendum. Even as a lefty ( but not a Linke) I voted against this as it is not the right way to go about unfair high rents.
    Looks like it passed:

    https://twitter.com/dwenteignen/status/1442220844521070592
    Well they would claim that, that is the group that brought the referendum. There is no official news yet.
    I don't think they'd make up the numbers, do you? Most likely is that they are preliminary figures, but based on a fair chunk of the vote so reasonable to assume it's representative.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    UK hospitals

    image
    image
    image
  • eristdoof said:

    Laschet might well not get a seat in the Bundestag. He is not standing in a constituency and the CDU are predicted not to get any "list candidates" elected in his state. But he might still be chosen to be chancellor.

    In that scenario wouldn't the chances of the CDU/CSU leading the coalition be very low?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    eristdoof said:

    Quincel said:

    Holy cow: Berliners have voted for this law to seize at 'well below market rates' over 200k properties from corporate landlords. The ballot is non-binding and the law may well be unconstitutional, but a dramatic moment nonetheless.

    https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-faces-expropriation-vote-what-happens-if-the-people-say-yes/a-59070328

    Fake news, There has been no information about this referendum. Even as a lefty ( but not a Linke) I voted against this as it is not the right way to go about unfair high rents.
    Looks like it passed:

    https://twitter.com/dwenteignen/status/1442220844521070592
    Well they would claim that, that is the group that brought the referendum. There is no official news yet.
    OK I have just seen an atricle that says it "is likely" to have passed.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
    It is taking the family home.

    I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.

    The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.

    https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

    It is not taking the family home

    You are so frustrating

    The owner is deceased and the estate pays IHT over £325,000 which by your own admission is not far below the SE

    The residue is payable to the beneficiaries

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    UK deaths

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,659
    @eristdoof the results are here: https://www.wahlen-berlin.de/abstimmungen/VE2021/AFSPRAES/ergebnisse_gemeinde_1100.html

    Looks like a yes, especially given how many have counted.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,343
    edited September 2021

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT Re Jimmy Saville.
    He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive.
    Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep.
    But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us.
    Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.

    As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
    That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.

    At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.

    As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.

    If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.

    You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
    Well said. A woman who has been abused may share her experience.

    A man who abuses others almost certainly does not share their experience.

    I don't know of anyone who has done anything to "blow the whistle" on. Not a single thing. Now if Cyclefree is saying that its happened but I wasn't aware of it . . . well how could I blow the whistle if I'm not aware of it?
    I can accept, particularly in the case of harrassment, that I have not seen something that should have been obvious, that I have not reported language that I should have perhaps, and that too many people, probably otherwise decent people, have seen actions that they should have reported but did nothing for one reason or another. And that I, and many men, have much to learn about what is or was thought acceptable.

    What I won't accept is the absurd proposition that all men know a rapist and harrasser, and know that person is a racist and harrasser, and did nothing, without the acknowledgement that the second part of that proposition is simply not true, and thus the premise that either something was done or it was covered up must be true. Those are not the only options.

    If the argument is too many do know someone committed such offences and still did nothing? I can accept that too. But that was not the argument put. And, clearly, from such an erudite person, deliberately not put.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,443
    Age related data scaled to 100K

    image
    image
    image
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    HYUFD said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
    4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
  • MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    After 159/299 seats:

    CDU/CSU 30.0
    SPD 26.4

    Is that right? Seems contrary to narrative?

    https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html

    The headline figures are done on the list vote. I think the numbers you quote is the constituency vote.
    Thanks - yes - I see now.

    Not sure why there is such a big difference between the two votes?
    It's quite common to split the vote in Germany. Check the scottish parliament election as well. Virtually all the green votes were split votes as only a couple stood in their constituencies.
  • HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    And I think what polling on this we have the general population back on on this Big G.

    However, where HY might be right, an important section of Tory support may be in the oppose column?
    As long as it keeps them in their seats they will not complain but what @HYUFD is blinded on, is that the country have moved as a body left wanting more covid regulations and lockdowns if necessary and absolutely spending on the NHS and social care, and listening to him at the UN he is really pushing climate change for all its worth which is very much today's topic

    For all his faults, Boris understands this and is moving onto that agenda and if some of his right wingers complain then he will just carry on anyway
    59% of voters think inheritance tax is unfair, including 67% of Conservative voters, it is the most unpopular tax there is

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/03/19/inheritance-tax-most-unfair
    It is the correct thing to do and you may find Rishi does the right thing
    The thing is that you're both right.

    More tax has got to come from somewhere, and wealth rather than incomes is the clear way to do it.

    But it will also make the Conservative core vote very unhappy bunnies.

    So BoJo can either make himself unpopular quickly (with even more tax rises) or slowly (as the fiscal wheels fall off).

    Which is more likely?
    I expect Rishi will make a balanced case for a wealth tax next month
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    How did council house sales improve social mobility? I am sure you have a raft of dubious evidence, but anecdotally I don't see it. Unless by social mobility you mean as home owners they became Conservatives.

    And don't get me started on Grammar Schools. I went to a s*** one.
    Becoming a home owner rather than a renter is an example of social mobility, of course.

    More of our top professions like law and medicine had state educated practitioners when we had more grammar schools than now when they are mainly dominated by private schools. Grammars had and have a good record of Oxbridge entry, certainly better than most comprehensives. We also had plenty of grammar school PMs, we have yet to have a PM fully educated at a comprehensive
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123

    eristdoof said:

    Laschet might well not get a seat in the Bundestag. He is not standing in a constituency and the CDU are predicted not to get any "list candidates" elected in his state. But he might still be chosen to be chancellor.

    In that scenario wouldn't the chances of the CDU/CSU leading the coalition be very low?
    In practice no, because the overall numbers are the same, but I think that it should make huge diffrence, "no seat, no place round the table".
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,774
    HYUFD said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
    Something always seems to happen to stop the CSU candidate from becoming chancellor, whether it's the voters or those who choose the Union candidate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,696

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    How did council house sales improve social mobility? I am sure you have a raft of dubious evidence, but anecdotally I don't see it. Unless by social mobility you mean as home owners they became Conservatives.

    And don't get me started on Grammar Schools. I went to a s*** one.
    Yes, they bettered themselves to become Conservatives. This is what he means. And he does mean it too. Total sincerity there.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,101
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    I never said he was near Corbyn or Rayner, but he is left of centre no matter what you may claim
    He isn't. if he was he would be increasing immigration, increasing welfare spending, increasing income tax and IHT and very woke
    Visa quotas increasing immigration, pension and benefits rises in Apri, of approximately 3.4%, NI increases and rumours of inheritance tax changes rather contradicts your view
    A points system to replace EU free movement, triple lock ended and pensions frozen, NI raised to avoid income tax and IHT rises and most nations fund healthcare through insurance anyway
    Pensions are not frozen, they rise by cpi in April if above 2.5% and current forecast is 3.4%

    NI rise is not connected to the rumoured rise in IHT and is nowhere near enough for social care

    And I have no idea what you are talking about most fund health care through insurance, a privileged few maybe

    I cannot believe you write such nonsense
    Most US and continental healthcare is funded via insurance
    Irrelevant as that is not the case in the UK
    The NI rise is mainly to fund health and social care.

    Lloyd George set up NI to fund healthcare, the state pension and unemployment benefits
    Employee NI is not hypothecated though; it's just a tax on (earned) income. If you cannot see that NI is just another income tax you're even denser than I thought.
    You cannot claim the state pension without NI payments or credits, nor can you claim JSA without sufficient NI contributions
    Er... You know about Pension Credit and UC right?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377
    edited September 2021
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
    4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
    The last 2 times the CDU chancellor candidate lost an election, 1976 and 1998, the Union candidate at the next election was from the CSU. Strauss in 1980 and Stoiber in 2002.

    Given this will be Laschet and the CDU's defeat the CSU will likely refuse to back any candidate but Soder next time
  • eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    Laschet might well not get a seat in the Bundestag. He is not standing in a constituency and the CDU are predicted not to get any "list candidates" elected in his state. But he might still be chosen to be chancellor.

    In that scenario wouldn't the chances of the CDU/CSU leading the coalition be very low?
    In practice no, because the overall numbers are the same, but I think that it should make huge diffrence, "no seat, no place round the table".
    Yes, that's what I meant - the impact in terms of loss of political credibility and the corresponding effect on what the FDP and Greens will do.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    They might have got a few more %-points, but "walked it" is certainly an over exaggeration,
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
    It is taking the family home.

    I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.

    The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.

    https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

    It is not taking the family home

    You are so frustrating

    The owner is deceased and the estate pays IHT over £325,000 which by your own admission is not far below the SE

    The residue is payable to the beneficiaries

    The family estate pays IHT over the threshold ie that means most estates in London and the South East and part of the value of the family home therefore taken by the state
  • eristdoof said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    They might have got a few more %-points, but "walked it" is certainly an over exaggeration,
    A few more percentage points on 25% is a big deal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377
    eristdoof said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    They might have got a few more %-points, but "walked it" is certainly an over exaggeration,
    A few more points was all they needed to stay in power
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    I never said he was near Corbyn or Rayner, but he is left of centre no matter what you may claim
    He isn't. if he was he would be increasing immigration, increasing welfare spending, increasing income tax and IHT and very woke
    Visa quotas increasing immigration, pension and benefits rises in Apri, of approximately 3.4%, NI increases and rumours of inheritance tax changes rather contradicts your view
    A points system to replace EU free movement, triple lock ended and pensions frozen, NI raised to avoid income tax and IHT rises and most nations fund healthcare through insurance anyway
    Pensions are not frozen, they rise by cpi in April if above 2.5% and current forecast is 3.4%

    NI rise is not connected to the rumoured rise in IHT and is nowhere near enough for social care

    And I have no idea what you are talking about most fund health care through insurance, a privileged few maybe

    I cannot believe you write such nonsense
    Most US and continental healthcare is funded via insurance
    Irrelevant as that is not the case in the UK
    The NI rise is mainly to fund health and social care.

    Lloyd George set up NI to fund healthcare, the state pension and unemployment benefits
    Employee NI is not hypothecated though; it's just a tax on (earned) income. If you cannot see that NI is just another income tax you're even denser than I thought.
    You cannot claim the state pension without NI payments or credits, nor can you claim JSA without sufficient NI contributions
    Er... You know about Pension Credit and UC right?
    Non contributory and funded by income tax
  • .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    How did council house sales improve social mobility? I am sure you have a raft of dubious evidence, but anecdotally I don't see it. Unless by social mobility you mean as home owners they became Conservatives.

    And don't get me started on Grammar Schools. I went to a s*** one.
    You don't think people owning their own home makes aids social mobility?

    Its not simply that they became Conservatives, many didn't, but by owning their own home it gave them security. And owning your own home dramatically improves your own welfare as once you've paid off the mortgage you are able to live rent-free for the rest of your life.

    If two people are on the same income, but half of what one person takes home goes on rent - and the other never has a penny of rent to pay - don't you think the latter has improved their social mobility?

    Ridiculously now we tax the ones who have to pay their rent through their wages much higher than those on the same income with unearned wealth and no rent to pay.
  • Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?

    20% threshold of MPs nominations.

    Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39

  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123

    eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    Laschet might well not get a seat in the Bundestag. He is not standing in a constituency and the CDU are predicted not to get any "list candidates" elected in his state. But he might still be chosen to be chancellor.

    In that scenario wouldn't the chances of the CDU/CSU leading the coalition be very low?
    In practice no, because the overall numbers are the same, but I think that it should make huge diffrence, "no seat, no place round the table".
    Yes, that's what I meant - the impact in terms of loss of political credibility and the corresponding effect on what the FDP and Greens will do.
    But it seems that the Germans don't consider it in that way. If he is the chancellor candidate and has a chance to negotiate then he has a right to be around the table. I think that the FDP and Greens can say to him "you don't have a mandate, Next"
  • HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
    4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
    The last 2 times the CDU chancellor candidate lost an election, 1976 and 1998, the Union candidate at the next election was from the CSU. Strauss in 1980 and Stoiber in 2002.

    Given this will be Laschet and the CDU's defeat the CSU will likely refuse to back any candidate but Soder next time
    Stoiber was the candidate in 2002 because of sexism in the CDU as well as a pragmatic decision by Merkel that Schröder would win so it was better to let another male rival carry the can.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:

    Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT
    HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.

    Drinks all round!
    If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.

    Hence Boris would not do it
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
    It is taking the family home.

    I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.

    The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.

    https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

    It is not taking the family home

    You are so frustrating

    The owner is deceased and the estate pays IHT over £325,000 which by your own admission is not far below the SE

    The residue is payable to the beneficiaries

    The family estate pays IHT over the threshold ie that means most estates in London and the South East and part of the value of the family home therefore taken by the state
    Quite right too but the home is not taken, tax is taken
  • eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    Laschet might well not get a seat in the Bundestag. He is not standing in a constituency and the CDU are predicted not to get any "list candidates" elected in his state. But he might still be chosen to be chancellor.

    In that scenario wouldn't the chances of the CDU/CSU leading the coalition be very low?
    In practice no, because the overall numbers are the same, but I think that it should make huge diffrence, "no seat, no place round the table".
    Yes, that's what I meant - the impact in terms of loss of political credibility and the corresponding effect on what the FDP and Greens will do.
    But it seems that the Germans don't consider it in that way. If he is the chancellor candidate and has a chance to negotiate then he has a right to be around the table. I think that the FDP and Greens can say to him "you don't have a mandate, Next"
    Ah, interesting, thanks.
  • If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Yes. Given the strong preference for Scholz as Chancellor in the polls, the SPD have done relatively badly. You'd have to think that with no preference for either candidate for Chancellor that the CDU would have a clear lead.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:

    Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT
    HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.

    Drinks all round!
    Some tweaking around the edges of IHT is not going to cause a wipe out. Ridiculous.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377

    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
    4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
    The last 2 times the CDU chancellor candidate lost an election, 1976 and 1998, the Union candidate at the next election was from the CSU. Strauss in 1980 and Stoiber in 2002.

    Given this will be Laschet and the CDU's defeat the CSU will likely refuse to back any candidate but Soder next time
    Stoiber was the candidate in 2002 because of sexism in the CDU as well as a pragmatic decision by Merkel that Schröder would win so it was better to let another male rival carry the can.
    Stoiber was just 3 seats behind Schroder in that election and tied on votes
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,123
    RobD said:

    @eristdoof the results are here: https://www.wahlen-berlin.de/abstimmungen/VE2021/AFSPRAES/ergebnisse_gemeinde_1100.html

    Looks like a yes, especially given how many have counted.

    Thanks, yes, that looks like a "yes" not only in terms of over 50% but there is also an absolute number of "yesses" votes and that has also been achieved.
  • kinabalu said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    How did council house sales improve social mobility? I am sure you have a raft of dubious evidence, but anecdotally I don't see it. Unless by social mobility you mean as home owners they became Conservatives.

    And don't get me started on Grammar Schools. I went to a s*** one.
    Yes, they bettered themselves to become Conservatives. This is what he means. And he does mean it too. Total sincerity there.
    Thatchers right to buy made hundreds of thousands of former tenants and Labour voters into Tories. That has persisted to this day.
  • Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?

    20% threshold of MPs nominations.

    Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39

    All else being equal, getting 36 nominees from 232 is considerably easier than 39 nominees from 199. Some of the lost seats would include those who would have been on that side (eg Pidcock).

    Worth remembering in 2015 that Corbyn only got to the 36 because Margaret Beckett chose to sign the nomination paper "to widen the debate" and came to deeply regret it. The same mistake should not happen again next time, but people do tend to forget to learn from history.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,101
    edited September 2021

    Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?

    20% threshold of MPs nominations.

    Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39

    Interesting use of the word 'exactly'
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,343

    Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?

    20% threshold of MPs nominations.

    Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39

    Presumably they are banking both on there being fewer of the awkward left than in 2015 as a proportion of the total MPs, and that next time MPs won't be so silly as to ignore their own concerns and the spirit of the rules in order to let through an unacceptable candidate.

    Neither seems certain to me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,696
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT Re Jimmy Saville.
    He groomed an entire nation's Establishment. Using him to have a pop at just the BBC is a bit reductive.
    Strangely. It was widely rumoured about amongst the younger generation. We knew not to go to his club in Manchester. Don't know anyone my age who thought him other than a total creep.
    But our elders and betters couldn't contain their gushing enthusiasm for the living saint amongst us.
    Any forensic dramatisation might expose the hypocrisy of an entire generation.

    As to why whistleblowers don't speak up, even though they know ought to know or suspect, well let me ask the men amongst you this. Every woman I know has suffered sexual harassment of some kind, some of it the most serious there is. Statistically, you must know men who have raped or sexually harassed women. How often have you blown the whistle about their conduct? And, if not, why not?
    That's an exceptionally stupidly put question if I may say so, which given your ability to be very clear is surprising. You've jumped straight from saying that statistically we must know someone who has raped or sexually harassed a woman to presuming we know about it happening.

    At the very least allow the possibility of us being blind enough to not realise we know a rapist or sexual assaulter and criticise that, than jump immediately to an implicit accusation we've decided not to report a rapist.

    As it stands your question doesn't make any point about whistleblowing, since a whistleblower knows something is up and you've apparently granted all men the power of omniscence.

    If you want to make the point that men should be far more alert to the signs someone is a rapist or sexual assaulter, perhaps say that rather than presume everyone knows but does nothing.

    You are right people do not like those who blow the whistle - it's why many whistleblowing policies are not worth the paper they are printed on, since the desire to punish remains. But your question to illustrate it doesn'trelate to that at all.
    You're being overly sensitive imo. I think it's a fair enough question. Eg I have known men who've harassed women and have not always called it out. Bet this applies to other posters on here too. Can't be just me. So, why didn't I? Why didn't they? This is not a stupid question. It's quite an interesting and important question.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:

    Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT
    HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.

    Drinks all round!
    Remember I am not a true believer and can clear off along with other fellow conservative posters

    I have heard it said IHT is on Rishi list and he needs more revenue and IHT and CGT are sensible targets
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,377
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:

    Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT
    HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.

    Drinks all round!
    Some tweaking around the edges of IHT is not going to cause a wipe out. Ridiculous.
    It would, trust me. Tory voters across the home counties would see their inheritances vanish and would stay home or vote RefUK, what is the point of voting Tory if only to raise taxes across the board.

    The LDs would thus sweep Home Counties marginals by default and in London the same would apply handing Starmer Tory marginals in the capital by default.

    The Blue Wall would be broken as much as the Red Wall was in 2019
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:

    Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT
    HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.

    Drinks all round!
    If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.

    Hence Boris would not do it
    If the Tories raise IHT then "the only Tory in the village" will be on here singing about why its such a good idea.
  • Heinz Brandenburg @HzBrandenburg
    The terrible news for the size of the Bundestag is that the CSU only lost one seat in Munich, winning 45 of 46 (2 outstanding, but unlikely to go elsewhere).
    But only 31.8% of the list vote.

    That could increase Bavaria's share of seats to 130 and the Bundestag to at least 840.

    https://twitter.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1442250849976127489
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,659

    Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?

    20% threshold of MPs nominations.

    Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39

    Interesting use of the word 'exactly'
    Basically exactly. ;)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,101
    edited September 2021

    Have I missed something on the rule change that Starmer has won that have shattered the Left?

    20% threshold of MPs nominations.

    Labour only have 199 MPs - so a Corbyn type would need basically exactly the same number of signatures as he did in 2015 ≈ 36 vs 39

    All else being equal, getting 36 nominees from 232 is considerably easier than 39 nominees from 199. Some of the lost seats would include those who would have been on that side (eg Pidcock).

    Worth remembering in 2015 that Corbyn only got to the 36 because Margaret Beckett chose to sign the nomination paper "to widen the debate" and came to deeply regret it. The same mistake should not happen again next time, but people do tend to forget to learn from history.
    Minor point but wouldn't it require 40 MPs to achieve a 20% threshold of 199?

    Edit: And isn't 35 sufficient to achieve 15% of 232?. Thus it's 35 versus 40.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,659

    Heinz Brandenburg @HzBrandenburg
    The terrible news for the size of the Bundestag is that the CSU only lost one seat in Munich, winning 45 of 46 (2 outstanding, but unlikely to go elsewhere).
    But only 31.8% of the list vote.

    That could increase Bavaria's share of seats to 130 and the Bundestag to at least 840.

    https://twitter.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1442250849976127489

    Terrible news indeed, hah!
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    Who is talking of taking peoples homes..

    Inheritance tax is taken after death and there is £325,000 threshold which for most people outside London would exempt them

    You need to get real about this
    It is taking the family home.

    I know you are a former New Labour voter who does not care about many core Tory principles but I do.

    The median house price is also £342,000 in the South East now and £495,000 in London so the average property there is above the threshold already. There are also plenty of properties in wealthier parts of the North and Midlands and Wales which would also be hit by a rise in IHT.

    https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

    It is not taking the family home

    You are so frustrating

    The owner is deceased and the estate pays IHT over £325,000 which by your own admission is not far below the SE

    The residue is payable to the beneficiaries

    Isn't it actually £1million for a "family home" i.e. married couple???
  • eekeek Posts: 17,741
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:

    Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT
    HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.

    Drinks all round!
    Some tweaking around the edges of IHT is not going to cause a wipe out. Ridiculous.
    It would, trust me. Tory voters across the home counties would see their inheritances vanish and would stay home or vote RefUK, what is the point of voting Tory if only to raise taxes across the board.

    The LDs would thus sweep Home Counties marginals by default and in London the same would apply handing Starmer Tory marginals in the capital by default
    IHT generates peanuts, (well £5.1bn).

    It needs to be a land value or similar tax if you want real additional tax revenue.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    Gosh, I really hope both you and Big G are right:

    Big G - Rishi will definitely raise IHT
    HYUFD - if he does, Tories will face a 1997 style wipeout.

    Drinks all round!
    If the Tories raise IHT even I would have to think about staying home at the next general election, it would be such a betrayal of Tory principles and large numbers of Tories round here would feel the same and stay home or vote ReformUK in protest.

    Hence Boris would not do it
    I really do not think you staying at home will be on either Boris or Rishi mind to be honest
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,696

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Per betfair SPD have won. Thanks to @NickPalmer for the tip when it was 1.3.

    If true then Boris will indeed be the only conservative leader left in the G7 apart from Japan (if you count the LDP as conservative which is debatable given their name).

    The last time there was only 1 conservative in the G7 was Chirac from 1998-2000, again an equally charismatic figure like Boris able to defy the western tide to the centre left
    I am not sure if you have noticed, but Boris has moved noticeably to the left so there is only Japan left then
    He is still the leader of the main Conservative Party in the UK and his cut to UC and ending of free movement from the EU for example are hardly centre left actions.

    Though yes he has positioned himself generally in the relative centre ground
    Time for for Rishi to ameliorate the UC cut but he is left of centre and some distance from the right of the party
    He is not left of centre, he is centrist on economics, populist on culture and social issues, he is miles away from Rayner and Corbyn.

    He is not a pure Thatcherite but then most Tory PMs aren't
    Social issues not even etched on the yardstick. Kate Hoey went hunting, but was rightly in the Labour Party for how she voted on economic questions.
    Social issues are the yardstick which makes you a conservative as well as support for inheritance, being economically Thatcherite could make you a classical liberal as much as a conservative
    I hope the rumours that Rishi is looking at inheritance tax are true
    If they are he can kiss goodbye to any chance of any hope of being Tory leader and PM, there would be a revolution amongst Tory MPs and grassroots and we would lose our poll lead.

    As May discovered in 2017 threatening to take peoples' inheritance is electoral suicide.

    As Osborne discovered in 2007 however IHT cut proposals are extremely popular
    Another nonsense post to be rowed back on when it happens
    A rise in inheritance tax is a red line, the Tory Party has always been the party that has supported inherited wealth no matter what.

    There would be a huge revolt from members and MPs in the home counties and posh parts of London and rightly so, Boris would probably have to sack him. Hence he will not do it
    Can I ask you a hypothetical question.

    If it was proveable that a rise in inheritance tax resulted in better social mobility and economic growth, would you still oppose it?
    Yes because it is not conservative and anti family and anti preservation of wealth within the family.

    Not that it would anyway, you improve social mobility by improving education standards and choice and getting more middle class jobs available not by taking peoples houses. You get economic growth by cutting taxes across the board not raising them
    People relying on inheritance or family handouts does not 'improve social mobility'. It makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds to get on!

    😠
    No it doesn't, you don't improve social mobility by taking peoples' family homes you just end up with even lower home ownership.

    Thatcher's council house sales was a measure that actually did improve social mobility, as did the expansion of white collar jobs in the 1950s and 1960s and as did many grammar schools
    We are not talking about 'taking people's homes'. Those fortunate enough to have these inheritances which they have got worked for ie unearned wealth need to pay a fair share in tax.

    Also applies to those getting large capital transfers from mummy and daddy eg to buy properties etc.

    We need to sort out the state of the nation's finances and proper tax on unearned wealth needs to be a key part of that.
    You are talking about most under 65s in London and the SE here, south of Watford the average paid worker can only buy a property or get a deposit to buy a property with parental assistance or inheritance now.

    Remove that and the Tories would face a 1997 style wipeout as their heartland vote collapsed.

    Estates over £1 million still pay IHT anyway
    The vast majority of people don't inherit much.

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-8522389/Parents-secretly-plan-leave-bigger-inheritance-children-expect.html

    "...recent government statistics show the average inheritance is £11,000, but among those aged 55-64 it is £33,000 and among over-65s it is £20,000."
    IHT should be completely abolished, and any money received simply taxed as income. Which should include NI too as that should be merged with income tax.

    It is repugnant to say that an inheritance is less worthy of being taxed than money actually worked for.
    Crashes onto the right side of history.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,718
    I've never could get my head round the argument that IHT is "wrong" on the basis that people in richer parts of the country are more likely to have to pay it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,801
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the CDU had chosen a less voter-repellent leader, they'd have walked this, wouldn't they?

    Indeed, if Scholz does become chancellor, Soder is nailed on for Union chancellor candidate in 2025 given Laschet's defeat
    4 years is a long time to find another leader. The CSU is not liked by much of Germany.
    The last 2 times the CDU chancellor candidate lost an election, 1976 and 1998, the Union candidate at the next election was from the CSU. Strauss in 1980 and Stoiber in 2002.

    Given this will be Laschet and the CDU's defeat the CSU will likely refuse to back any candidate but Soder next time
    Stoiber was the candidate in 2002 because of sexism in the CDU as well as a pragmatic decision by Merkel that Schröder would win so it was better to let another male rival carry the can.
    Stoiber was just 3 seats behind Schroder in that election and tied on votes
    Yes it was close, but the point is that Merkel was still consolidating her power in the party at that time. She did a deal to become the combined Union leader in parliament in return for letting Stoiber be chancellor candidate, so she came out of it the winner.

    If she had insisted on being the candidate and then lost, there would have been pressure to replace her.
This discussion has been closed.