Sturgeon looks tired and shopworn, now (to this non-Scottish outsider). She is still a capable politician, she has been formidable, but she seems weary in her soul.
To be fair, I imagine every politician on earth is fucking exhausted. Covid, now war. And economic ruin approaching? Not a fun time to be leading
Dunno, Jeremy Hunt seemed pretty chipper when we shared a platform yesterday (solidarity with Ukrainian refugees). If you're seriously into politics you regard constant crises as interesting - sad, worrying, grim, yes - but the adrenalin pops up. I'm not sure that speaks well of politicians, but it's still true in my experience.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
I would tend to agree. I bow to no-one in my disdain for the PRC regime. But they've been impressively temperate. They are many things. But irrational and hasty aren't two of them. That's why Russia=PRC has always been a false comparison.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
It all went wrong in 1945 when we didn’t follow Churchill and Patton’s instincts, release non-SS German POWs and march on with them until Moscow.
It's an interesting point. It took Stalin nearly 10 years to bring the Ukrainians into line after 1945 without them getting support from the west. Whether we would have had a wave of democratisation across eastern Europe at that time I'm not sure.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
Yes for sure the SNP as it is now is not for Independence. Unfortunately the only advocates at present are ALBA or ISP. SNP will need a big clear out for sure and way they are going on GRA they may have some big shocks coming. Unfortunately the other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon. PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
If China did agree to sell, it would charge top dollar. How would the Russians pay? They've done a brilliant job of bankrupting themselves.
Ans why would China want to make a strategic partner of Russia? The only thing a weakened and humiliated Russia might have is land and resources. Russia *might* be willing to sell the latter at a reduced price in the future for help now, but the former? No way.
This is probably an occasion where China might want to act the neutral elder statesman than a player on the field.
Russia could "sell" the area around Vladivostok back to China.
I can't see Russia spending vast amounts of treasure to gain control over land to the west, just to cede it on the east. This is not Alaska...
WRT to the $14bn military aid US military aid to Ukraine over the coming years. As of Friday the Ukranian government had raised $387 million, through private donations towards the defence of Ukraine. It made $13.5 million on one day (Friday) If this level of private donations continues, then it will match that of the US military aid. At this rate, the war against Russia could be crowdfunded.
Good for them, and everybody who has contributed. do you have the link to how to donate directly to there defence?
I do think Germany could save themselves a lot of money if instead of spending 100 billion Euro on their own defence over the next 5 years, they gave 5 billion Euros worth are arms over the next 2 weeks. and with it brought humiliated the Russians so much so that Putin never tries again or better still is overthrown.
Looking at the list of supply's on Wikipedia, (no doubt incomplete) 2,000 rifles here, 700 first aid kits, 5,000 sets of body armed, doesn't look like it will add up to much. with a few exceptions.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
This snipit is interesting,
“Other US officials have also said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine approaches the start of its third week,” the FT report said
What do we think they have run out of? Trucks obviously is a pinch point, but Presidion guide missiles and smart bombs? anything else?
Sadly I can tread that because of the paywall, what is in the article, does it day what assistance they are after?
Unspecified
"US officials told the Financial Times that Russia had requested military equipment and other assistance since the start of the invasion. They declined to give details about what Russia had requested.
"Another person familiar with the situation said the US was preparing to warn its allies, amid some indications that China may be preparing to help Russia. Other US officials have said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine extends into its third week."
It would not be surprising if Russia was running out of ammunition of various types at the very least. Their supply chains were reliant on Western sources and now they have been switched off. Ukraine, on the other hand, is getting vast quantities of materials being sent over to them all the time. If Russia can no longer arm its troops then surely the invasion is over? If so their assumption of an operation lasting no more than a week will have been their downfall.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
This snipit is interesting,
“Other US officials have also said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine approaches the start of its third week,” the FT report said
What do we think they have run out of? Trucks obviously is a pinch point, but Presidion guide missiles and smart bombs? anything else?
Well, they've been firing Kh-101 missiles in the last couple of days. Shiny, shiny toys. Except that the engines are made in Ukraine.... Guess they won't be replacing those this week....
That's an extreme example - but the whole Russian economy depends on high-tech from aboard to run. Even stuff like high quality CNC tools (replaced automatically after x operations) come from abroad. Run out of those, and you can't machine high quality stuff. There are hundreds of such choke points in the Russian economy....
Even before the war, the rate of production of high end weapons was very, very low.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
If Russia didn't have nukes it wouldn't have invaded.
Why not? Giant willy waving military, filling ol' Red Square with lot of jack boots. All the things that make the stupid people with too much brass macaroni on their hats, think they are awesome. Look at the *rocket* on that launcher..... All long and wide.....
In a world with no nukes, why not take the band on tour in your smaller neighbour?
Wasn't talking of a world with no nukes. Just a Russia.without any. They would not have invaded.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Wrong, 4 previous Trident tests were successful.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
If Russia didn't have nukes it wouldn't have invaded.
This is the message we should be getting across to people around the world. A crisis like this where a nuclear state can attack a non nuclear one with impunity only encourages nuclear proliferation which is in no-ones interests.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
It would probably be wrong of me to note once again that you can read most FT articles if you take the link provided by Googling 'FT' followed by the headline (i.e. Google 'FT US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine' in this case). I assume the FT allow this deliberately for some reason.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Wrong, 4 previous Trident tests were successful.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
Quite a spectacular video on the first post on the following page (sorry, can't direct-link). Allegedly of some Russian vehicles laagered up off-road in a forest.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Wrong, 4 previous Trident tests were successful.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
If Russia didn't have nukes it wouldn't have invaded.
This is the message we should be getting across to people around the world. A crisis like this where a nuclear state can attack a non nuclear one with impunity only encourages nuclear proliferation which is in no-ones interests.
That ship has long sailed, been retried, scrapped and a replacement ordered.
Japan and Taiwan have vast stores of plutonium (in old fuel rods) which has aged enough that the Pu-240 has decayed to U-236.
Dissolve in nitric acid, precipitate the plutonium with oxalic acid. The chemistry is all in the Los Alamos Primer.
Did you know that the crucibles used to make the cores for the first atomic bombs were hand made, like pottery on a wheel?
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
It would probably be wrong of me to note once again that you can read most FT articles if you take the link provided by Googling 'FT' followed by the headline (i.e. Google 'FT US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine' in this case). I assume the FT allow this deliberately for some reason.
Thanks, I did not know that but, it worked for me and I will use again.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
If China did agree to sell, it would charge top dollar. How would the Russians pay? They've done a brilliant job of bankrupting themselves.
Ans why would China want to make a strategic partner of Russia? The only thing a weakened and humiliated Russia might have is land and resources. Russia *might* be willing to sell the latter at a reduced price in the future for help now, but the former? No way.
This is probably an occasion where China might want to act the neutral elder statesman than a player on the field.
Russia could "sell" the area around Vladivostok back to China.
I can't see Russia spending vast amounts of treasure to gain control over land to the west, just to cede it on the east. This is not Alaska...
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
I would tend to agree. I bow to no-one in my disdain for the PRC regime. But they've been impressively temperate. They are many things. But irrational and hasty aren't two of them. That's why Russia=PRC has always been a false comparison.
That's probably true but... China would love to see the US knocked off its perch. I suspect it was happy to support Russia initially because like Russia it assumed the West would bleat a lot but do little.
As events have unfolded China finds itself with an awkward dilemma.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Not me.
99% certain it was. As I say, I pulled you up on it because of your MH17 Kremlinology.
If I get time, I might even look through the posts...
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
The new German commitment is very important. Would the US be prepared to back the integrity of the Baltic states? Germany is much nearer by.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
It would probably be wrong of me to note once again that you can read most FT articles if you take the link provided by Googling 'FT' followed by the headline (i.e. Google 'FT US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine' in this case). I assume the FT allow this deliberately for some reason.
Thanks, I did not know that but, it worked for me and I will use again.
Always seems to work. Follow the paywalled link, cut and paste the article title into Google, and the FT is your oyster.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Wrong, 4 previous Trident tests were successful.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Wrong, 4 previous Trident tests were successful.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
If China did agree to sell, it would charge top dollar. How would the Russians pay? They've done a brilliant job of bankrupting themselves.
Ans why would China want to make a strategic partner of Russia? The only thing a weakened and humiliated Russia might have is land and resources. Russia *might* be willing to sell the latter at a reduced price in the future for help now, but the former? No way.
This is probably an occasion where China might want to act the neutral elder statesman than a player on the field.
Russia could "sell" the area around Vladivostok back to China.
I can't see Russia spending vast amounts of treasure to gain control over land to the west, just to cede it on the east. This is not Alaska...
Nevertheless, this whole war seems to be about Putin's insecurities, and the myth of an ever expanding, mighty Russia as some kind of destiny. Can't imagine he'd be keen on any diminishment.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
This snipit is interesting,
“Other US officials have also said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine approaches the start of its third week,” the FT report said
What do we think they have run out of? Trucks obviously is a pinch point, but Presidion guide missiles and smart bombs? anything else?
Well, they've been firing Kh-101 missiles in the last couple of days. Shiny, shiny toys. Except that the engines are made in Ukraine.... Guess they won't be replacing those this week....
That's an extreme example - but the whole Russian economy depends on high-tech from aboard to run. Even stuff like high quality CNC tools (replaced automatically after x operations) come from abroad. Run out of those, and you can't machine high quality stuff. There are hundreds of such choke points in the Russian economy....
Even before the war, the rate of production of high end weapons was very, very low.
Thanks and that's interesting about the Kh-101 missile,
I would have thought that will enough money and possible a small delay, Russia could get CDC tools and other machinery from china, possibly made in china, or impoted though china, possible on black market 'second hand' might cost a bit in bribes, and there may be too much of a wait for this war, but I think a contrary with a billion Euro a day coming in from gas sales will get what they need one way or the other.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
I would tend to agree. I bow to no-one in my disdain for the PRC regime. But they've been impressively temperate. They are many things. But irrational and hasty aren't two of them. That's why Russia=PRC has always been a false comparison.
That's probably true but... China would love to see the US knocked off its perch. I suspect it was happy to support Russia initially because like Russia it assumed the West would bleat a lot but do little.
As events have unfolded China finds itself with an awkward dilemma.
Not half.
Their little mate in the kremlin has managed to unite the "West" in three weeks in a way not seen in thirty years. They are in danger of saddling themselves to a dying horse just because the horse isn't democratic or american.
It is so bad for world commerce that I cannot believe the leadership in china are not game planning how to throw Putin down a well.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
It would probably be wrong of me to note once again that you can read most FT articles if you take the link provided by Googling 'FT' followed by the headline (i.e. Google 'FT US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine' in this case). I assume the FT allow this deliberately for some reason.
Thanks - that works a treat for me.
Could you please now provide similar instructions for all paywalled sources (though not the Telegraph, as I don't think I'll be needing that)? TIA.
And with the winner and reserve making their lap of honour to the clapping of the audience, that’s it from Crufts 2022, and its back to PB cricket commentary (spoiler: England lose) for the next 51 weeks…
A great show this year, everyone relieved to be back in business after last year’s cancellation. The agility and flyball have been outstanding, as has the judging, with just the heelwork being somewhat underwhelming.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
It would probably be wrong of me to note once again that you can read most FT articles if you take the link provided by Googling 'FT' followed by the headline (i.e. Google 'FT US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine' in this case). I assume the FT allow this deliberately for some reason.
Thanks, I did not know that but, it worked for me and I will use again.
Always seems to work. Follow the paywalled link, cut and paste the article title into Google, and the FT is your oyster.
One thing to note: most large arms companies have little groups that work on cost-reducing weapons. Not for use in peace time, of course (that would affect the profit margin), but if a surge was needed. Basically asking questions like: "We make 20 of these missiles a year. If we needed to make 1,000, how could we do it, even if it reduces reliability of each one by 20%?" (figures made up).
Even little things like not binning chips can make a big difference.
The FT is a pretty reliable source, and it, in turn, is citing US intelligence, which so far has been highly accurate in predicting Ukrainian developments
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
Agree, the FT is pretty reliable and it is quoting sources. So we can take it as accurate I think.
I suspect Putin is putting Xi on the spot here. Supplying weapons to Russia is the last thing he will want. They might be able to help with things such as cyber attacks and satellite imagery but it’s still tricky for Xi given the implications I outlined earlier *
* another implication for China if it helped Russia is that it would screw up its relations with the EU even further and probably push more countries to be more vocal backing Lithuania in its dispute with China.
Whatever happens, we are now heading for a Cold War, with the West on one side - plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore - and China/Russia on the other. The democracies versus the autocracies
The Global South will look on - esp India and Brazil - and try to gain advantage by steering between the two poles, as and when it suits them
I am confident we can survive and thrive. We are the West. We are the richest people that ever lived on earth, and still full of resourcefulness and innovation. In a sense, perhaps we needed a horrible shake-up like this. To stop us navel-gazing our way to absolute decline
You might be 'the West'. I am British.
I am British. But in this, more importantly, I am the West. We will win, because we are free. We love our way of life more than they love theirs.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
HYUFD isn't a democratic Conservative but a right wing autocrat type. His focus isn't on what's the best, prudent way to run a society, but a naked focus on protecting the rich and powerful.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
It would probably be wrong of me to note once again that you can read most FT articles if you take the link provided by Googling 'FT' followed by the headline (i.e. Google 'FT US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine' in this case). I assume the FT allow this deliberately for some reason.
It wouldn't be wrong of you at all. Cos I didn't know. And have now read it. So ta for that.
"If Putin comes even close to considering [chemical war weapons], the only thing holding him back may be the attitude of President Xi in Beijing. He is the one person Putin has no option but to heed."
And the winner of Best in Show 2022 is…….the flat-coated retriever, this afternoon’s gundog winner from Norway, who has won prizes across Europe.
…with the reserve being the horrible little toy poodle.
A beautiful retriever, and a very functional dog, fit for purpose.
Yes. I remember our friends' one, on Wight, as it happens. He took it shooting sometimes. When we went for a walk it used to get quite distressed if we straggled - it did like us to walk together. And when we took it for the first walk on the first evenijng of the first visit we couldn't get it to go over the stiles. It just sat and waited. We had to carry it over. On the return: 'Oh, he is trained to wait till you are over. Then just tell him, "Get on!"'
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
HYUFD isn't a democratic Conservative but a right wing autocrat type. His focus isn't on what's the best, prudent way to run a society, but a naked focus on protecting the rich and powerful.
That's totally untrue.
He's whatever the Conservative party needs him to be. At the moment, that's the 'right wing autocratic type.' If Hunt wins next time, expect him to become a small state liberal. Should Patel win - actually, let's not imagine Patel winning, I don't want to give myself nightmares.
The FT is a pretty reliable source, and it, in turn, is citing US intelligence, which so far has been highly accurate in predicting Ukrainian developments
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
Agree, the FT is pretty reliable and it is quoting sources. So we can take it as accurate I think.
I suspect Putin is putting Xi on the spot here. Supplying weapons to Russia is the last thing he will want. They might be able to help with things such as cyber attacks and satellite imagery but it’s still tricky for Xi given the implications I outlined earlier *
* another implication for China if it helped Russia is that it would screw up its relations with the EU even further and probably push more countries to be more vocal backing Lithuania in its dispute with China.
Whatever happens, we are now heading for a Cold War, with the West on one side - plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore - and China/Russia on the other. The democracies versus the autocracies
The Global South will look on - esp India and Brazil - and try to gain advantage by steering between the two poles, as and when it suits them
I am confident we can survive and thrive. We are the West. We are the richest people that ever lived on earth, and still full of resourcefulness and innovation. In a sense, perhaps we needed a horrible shake-up like this. To stop us navel-gazing our way to absolute decline
You might be 'the West'. I am British.
I am British. But in this, more importantly, I am the West. We will win, because we are free. We love our way of life more than they love theirs.
Yes, on these core issues the western powers really are utterly united, and we feel it.
The FT is a pretty reliable source, and it, in turn, is citing US intelligence, which so far has been highly accurate in predicting Ukrainian developments
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
Agree, the FT is pretty reliable and it is quoting sources. So we can take it as accurate I think.
I suspect Putin is putting Xi on the spot here. Supplying weapons to Russia is the last thing he will want. They might be able to help with things such as cyber attacks and satellite imagery but it’s still tricky for Xi given the implications I outlined earlier *
* another implication for China if it helped Russia is that it would screw up its relations with the EU even further and probably push more countries to be more vocal backing Lithuania in its dispute with China.
Whatever happens, we are now heading for a Cold War, with the West on one side - plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore - and China/Russia on the other. The democracies versus the autocracies
The Global South will look on - esp India and Brazil - and try to gain advantage by steering between the two poles, as and when it suits them
I am confident we can survive and thrive. We are the West. We are the richest people that ever lived on earth, and still full of resourcefulness and innovation. In a sense, perhaps we needed a horrible shake-up like this. To stop us navel-gazing our way to absolute decline
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Wrong, 4 previous Trident tests were successful.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
The new German commitment is very important. Would the US be prepared to back the integrity of the Baltic states? Germany is much nearer by.
for one thing the 100 billion Euro thing may sound a lot but even if it materialises it really just gets the German armed forces up to the standard of the rest of the big NATO nations.
But more significantly, ones this war has finished, that 100 will be quietly delayed, cut and then forgotten about, the Greens do not what it, but cant say it now, the FDP will what to cut spending, and the SDP will what to prioritise elsewhere, in 2 years I think German defence speeding will be less than it was last year.
its a strangle particular thing to bet on, I don't think there is a market in predating defence speeding, but if you or anybody else what to do a private bet let me know.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
HYUFD isn't a democratic Conservative but a right wing autocrat type. His focus isn't on what's the best, prudent way to run a society, but a naked focus on protecting the rich and powerful.
That's totally untrue.
He's whatever the Conservative party needs him to be. At the moment, that's the 'right wing autocratic type.' If Hunt wins next time, expect him to become a small state liberal. Should Patel win - actually, let's not imagine Patel winning, I don't want to give myself nightmares.
I’ve never understood this sort of utter party loyalty. Probably why I can’t imagine joining one. I just don’t identify with any one set of policies enough.
One thing to note: most large arms companies have little groups that work on cost-reducing weapons. Not for use in peace time, of course (that would affect the profit margin), but if a surge was needed. Basically asking questions like: "We make 20 of these missiles a year. If we needed to make 1,000, how could we do it, even if it reduces reliability of each one by 20%?" (figures made up).
Even little things like not binning chips can make a big difference. I wonder if the Russians do similar?
My understanding is that a bigger issue for lots of the better stuff (e.g. guided missiles) is that they now can't import key parts until they've found a way round the sanctions, which no-one had planned for.
Recent events have me puzzling over an historical conundrum: what were Britain's war plans in September 1939? What did Chamberlain have in mind when he announced his fateful decision? Norway, Dunkirk and the fall of France undoubtedly threw us off course. But what did HMG actually plan to do before they were rudely interrupted?
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
"If Putin comes even close to considering [chemical war weapons], the only thing holding him back may be the attitude of President Xi in Beijing. He is the one person Putin has no option but to heed."
I see that the Russian Orthodox Church in the Netherlands has today defected to the Istanbul-based Orthodox Church. FWIW.
The Russian Orthodox Church has I believe been excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarch for refusing to recognise the autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Or something like that.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
It would probably be wrong of me to note once again that you can read most FT articles if you take the link provided by Googling 'FT' followed by the headline (i.e. Google 'FT US officials say Russia has asked China for military help in Ukraine' in this case). I assume the FT allow this deliberately for some reason.
Thanks, I did not know that but, it worked for me and I will use again.
Always seems to work. Follow the paywalled link, cut and paste the article title into Google, and the FT is your oyster.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
And PC, let it never be forgotten. Damnatio memoriae.
Recent events have me puzzling over an historical conundrum: what were Britain's war plans in September 1939? What did Chamberlain have in mind when he announced his fateful decision? Norway, Dunkirk and the fall of France undoubtedly threw us off course. But what did HMG actually plan to do before they were rudely interrupted?
In his memoir, Churchill says basically give the French what limited support we could (noting they’d always have more soldiers than us, especially before conscription kicked in), use the navy to control the seas, and try and get Belgium on board to reinforce the line there. Defensive basically, with a view to counter attack in due course.
Recent events have me puzzling over an historical conundrum: what were Britain's war plans in September 1939? What did Chamberlain have in mind when he announced his fateful decision? Norway, Dunkirk and the fall of France undoubtedly threw us off course. But what did HMG actually plan to do before they were rudely interrupted?
Basically reprise WW1. Stalemate on the Western front, and blockade Germany until surrender was the Anglo-French plan.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You'd be ideally suited to a job in the Kremlin with such fine, stirring Putinesque rhetoric, I reckon. Epping Council is way too lowly for your ambitions.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
The new German commitment is very important. Would the US be prepared to back the integrity of the Baltic states? Germany is much nearer by.
for one thing the 100 billion Euro thing may sound a lot but even if it materialises it really just gets the German armed forces up to the standard of the rest of the big NATO nations.
But more significantly, ones this war has finished, that 100 will be quietly delayed, cut and then forgotten about, the Greens do not what it, but cant say it now, the FDP will what to cut spending, and the SDP will what to prioritise elsewhere, in 2 years I think German defence speeding will be less than it was last year.
its a strangle particular thing to bet on, I don't think there is a market in predating defence speeding, but if you or anybody else what to do a private bet let me know.
It is definitely a "strange thing to bet on" and also quite, quite wrong. The shift in German priorities is obviously real and profound. See the polling in Germany. This move is popular. Germany has a muscle memory of an aggressive Russia's military strategies - ie rape and bomb. This has been quieted for 70 years because of German guilt. But -rightly - no more
Even if the war ends tonight - we can pray - the shift is tectonic and for real
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are the most repulsive of politicians.
He’s very good at mobilising support for the other parties. I’d love to watch him campaign. It would be hilarious.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
HYUFD isn't a democratic Conservative but a right wing autocrat type. His focus isn't on what's the best, prudent way to run a society, but a naked focus on protecting the rich and powerful.
That's totally untrue.
He's whatever the Conservative party needs him to be. At the moment, that's the 'right wing autocratic type.' If Hunt wins next time, expect him to become a small state liberal. Should Patel win - actually, let's not imagine Patel winning, I don't want to give myself nightmares.
I’ve never understood this sort of utter party loyalty. Probably why I can’t imagine joining one. I just don’t identify with any one set of policies enough.
It isn't policies for real party loyalists, it is the party. Like a football team, the manager and players change, but the support goes on, even if the former manager is now on a rival team.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
As did David Cameron and Theresa May and Liz Truss and Ben Wallace
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Surely creation of wealth was Whig. The Tories were just about preservation of the old order.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
This snipit is interesting,
“Other US officials have also said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine approaches the start of its third week,” the FT report said
What do we think they have run out of? Trucks obviously is a pinch point, but Presidion guide missiles and smart bombs? anything else?
Well, they've been firing Kh-101 missiles in the last couple of days. Shiny, shiny toys. Except that the engines are made in Ukraine.... Guess they won't be replacing those this week....
That's an extreme example - but the whole Russian economy depends on high-tech from aboard to run. Even stuff like high quality CNC tools (replaced automatically after x operations) come from abroad. Run out of those, and you can't machine high quality stuff. There are hundreds of such choke points in the Russian economy....
Even before the war, the rate of production of high end weapons was very, very low.
Thanks and that's interesting about the Kh-101 missile,
I would have thought that will enough money and possible a small delay, Russia could get CDC tools and other machinery from china, possibly made in china, or impoted though china, possible on black market 'second hand' might cost a bit in bribes, and there may be too much of a wait for this war, but I think a contrary with a billion Euro a day coming in from gas sales will get what they need one way or the other.
The problem is that if you change any of the ingredients in the process - machines, tools, dies, lubricants, metal stock, then you have to start again with getting the process dialled in. It's not like in Iron Man where Tony Stark designs his weapons on a computer, then gets drunk while AI makes it all for him.
And there is lots of stuff like that. Disrupted supply chains are hell....
A simple example from the past - in 1940, one of those mad British types from the comics (forget which one) pretty much stole some machine tools from Belgium. These were the tools for making 20mm gun barrels for the Hispano 404. If the UK didn't have those, it would have taken 12-18 *month* to re-create them. Doesn't matter how much money. Until then, next to no 20mm cannon for aircraft....
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
HYUFD isn't a democratic Conservative but a right wing autocrat type. His focus isn't on what's the best, prudent way to run a society, but a naked focus on protecting the rich and powerful.
That's totally untrue.
He's whatever the Conservative party needs him to be. At the moment, that's the 'right wing autocratic type.' If Hunt wins next time, expect him to become a small state liberal. Should Patel win - actually, let's not imagine Patel winning, I don't want to give myself nightmares.
Hunt is not that liberal, he wants to reduce the abortion time limit and was pro spending more on the NHS
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
The new German commitment is very important. Would the US be prepared to back the integrity of the Baltic states? Germany is much nearer by.
for one thing the 100 billion Euro thing may sound a lot but even if it materialises it really just gets the German armed forces up to the standard of the rest of the big NATO nations.
But more significantly, ones this war has finished, that 100 will be quietly delayed, cut and then forgotten about, the Greens do not what it, but cant say it now, the FDP will what to cut spending, and the SDP will what to prioritise elsewhere, in 2 years I think German defence speeding will be less than it was last year.
its a strangle particular thing to bet on, I don't think there is a market in predating defence speeding, but if you or anybody else what to do a private bet let me know.
It is definitely a "strange thing to bet on" and also quite, quite wrong. The shift in German priorities is obviously real and profound. See the polling in Germany. This move is popular. Germany has a muscle memory of an aggressive Russia's military strategies - ie rape and bomb. This has been quieted for 70 years because of German guilt. But -rightly - no more
Even if the war ends tonight - we can pray - the shift is tectonic and for real
More to the point, it is the sort of Economic stimulus likely to be supported by German business. Potentially massive sales to Eastern Europe too of Leopards and similar.
On other matters, by way of Sunday light relief, just finished this very enjoyable book - a general history of the Roman Army. In its way, rather reminiscent of the British and Indian Armies, though you'd need a much larger Royal Engineer component to do things such as building the Walls and laying out civilian towns for the Brits. Very taken with the notion that Juvenal was the former OC at the auxiliary fort at Maryport in Cumbria (where the Wall ends).
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
The new German commitment is very important. Would the US be prepared to back the integrity of the Baltic states? Germany is much nearer by.
In recent history, Germany has been the one telling the Baltics to shut up and not make trouble, while the US shipped in soldiers. This has changed in the last couple of weeks, but......
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Surely creation of wealth was Whig. The Tories were just about preservation of the old order.
It was preservation of wealth and the established church and monarchy that was key to Toryism.
The Whigs were more pro free trade and keener on constitutional reform
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
HYUFD isn't a democratic Conservative but a right wing autocrat type. His focus isn't on what's the best, prudent way to run a society, but a naked focus on protecting the rich and powerful.
That's totally untrue.
He's whatever the Conservative party needs him to be. At the moment, that's the 'right wing autocratic type.' If Hunt wins next time, expect him to become a small state liberal. Should Patel win - actually, let's not imagine Patel winning, I don't want to give myself nightmares.
I’ve never understood this sort of utter party loyalty. Probably why I can’t imagine joining one. I just don’t identify with any one set of policies enough.
It isn't policies for real party loyalists, it is the party. Like a football team, the manager and players change, but the support goes on, even if the former manager is now on a rival team.
Yes that makes sense, I suppose. What a depressing thought.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
You sound more and more like the Maomentum lot, anybody who isn't "ideologically pure", telling everybody else to f##k off and join the opposition.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Surely creation of wealth was Whig. The Tories were just about preservation of the old order.
It was preservation of wealth and the established church and monarchy that was key to Toryism.
The Whigs were more pro free trade and keener on constitutional reform
The mercantile class were the wealth-creators. Countries that preserved the aristocratic order, stagnated. I have always thought Thatcher was more Whig than Rory.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are the most repulsive of politicians.
He’s very good at mobilising support for the other parties. I’d love to watch him campaign. It would be hilarious.
I remember canvassing for Labour in 2001, with an assorted assembly of activists, each with their own hobby horse, from CND to Trotskiyism. I am sure we turned off at least as many voters as we turned out...
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Surely creation of wealth was Whig. The Tories were just about preservation of the old order.
It was preservation of wealth and the established church and monarchy that was key to Toryism.
The Whigs were more pro free trade and keener on constitutional reform
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Surely creation of wealth was Whig. The Tories were just about preservation of the old order.
It was preservation of wealth and the established church and monarchy that was key to Toryism.
The Whigs were more pro free trade and keener on constitutional reform
The mercantile class were the wealth-creators. Countries that preserved the aristocratic order, stagnated. I have always thought Thatcher was more Whig than Rory.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
I agree. It's great, isn't it?
I have never come across anyone in the conservative party in my 60 years association so embarrasing and frankly pathetic
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
On other matters, by way of Sunday light relief, just finished this very enjoyable book - a general history of the Roman Army. In its way, rather reminiscent of the British and Indian Armies, though you'd need a much larger Royal Engineer component to do things such as building the Walls and laying out civilian towns for the Brits. Very taken with the notion that Juvenal was the former OC at the auxiliary fort at Maryport in Cumbria (where the Wall ends).
Comments
They are many things. But irrational and hasty aren't two of them.
That's why Russia=PRC has always been a false comparison.
During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-60727472
Conscripts.
That's an extreme example - but the whole Russian economy depends on high-tech from aboard to run. Even stuff like high quality CNC tools (replaced automatically after x operations) come from abroad. Run out of those, and you can't machine high quality stuff. There are hundreds of such choke points in the Russian economy....
Even before the war, the rate of production of high end weapons was very, very low.
Just a Russia.without any.
They would not have invaded.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/23/how-did-the-trident-test-fail-and-what-did-theresa-may-know
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Michael Birnbaum
@michaelbirnbaum
NEW, and BIG -> Russia has turned to China for military equipment and aid in the weeks since it began its invasion of Ukraine, U.S. officials said.
@nakashimae scoop.
https://twitter.com/michaelbirnbaum/status/1503093503173271555
If it starts sending arms for Putin then they have no way back.
Escalation every day now.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/russian-troop-movements-reported-near-ukraine.304396/page-2054
The big boom is obviously an explosion; are the smaller ones other vehicles blowing up, or dust kicked up from firing?
Either way, spectacular.
Japan and Taiwan have vast stores of plutonium (in old fuel rods) which has aged enough that the Pu-240 has decayed to U-236.
Dissolve in nitric acid, precipitate the plutonium with oxalic acid. The chemistry is all in the Los Alamos Primer.
Did you know that the crucibles used to make the cores for the first atomic bombs were hand made, like pottery on a wheel?
The Hill live blog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Aigun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Peking#Manchuria
As events have unfolded China finds itself with an awkward dilemma.
If I get time, I might even look through the posts...
edit:apols, it may not have been you....
…with the reserve being the horrible little toy poodle.
I would have thought that will enough money and possible a small delay, Russia could get CDC tools and other machinery from china, possibly made in china, or impoted though china, possible on black market 'second hand' might cost a bit in bribes, and there may be too much of a wait for this war, but I think a contrary with a billion Euro a day coming in from gas sales will get what they need one way or the other.
Their little mate in the kremlin has managed to unite the "West" in three weeks in a way not seen in thirty years. They are in danger of saddling themselves to a dying horse just because the horse isn't democratic or american.
It is so bad for world commerce that I cannot believe the leadership in china are not game planning how to throw Putin down a well.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
Could you please now provide similar instructions for all paywalled sources (though not the Telegraph, as I don't think I'll be needing that)? TIA.
A great show this year, everyone relieved to be back in business after last year’s cancellation. The agility and flyball have been outstanding, as has the judging, with just the heelwork being somewhat underwhelming.
Even little things like not binning chips can make a big difference.
I wonder if the Russians do similar?
We will win, because we are free. We love our way of life more than they love theirs.
Cos I didn't know. And have now read it.
So ta for that.
Prof Paul Rogers:
"If Putin comes even close to considering [chemical war weapons], the only thing holding him back may be the attitude of President Xi in Beijing. He is the one person Putin has no option but to heed."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/12/vladimir-putin-chemical-weapons-ukrainians
Lovely dogs, but very boisterous. Also very fragile. Both developed cancers and neither made it to ten.
He's whatever the Conservative party needs him to be. At the moment, that's the 'right wing autocratic type.' If Hunt wins next time, expect him to become a small state liberal. Should Patel win - actually, let's not imagine Patel winning, I don't want to give myself nightmares.
Give me and English Pointer any day.
But more significantly, ones this war has finished, that 100 will be quietly delayed, cut and then forgotten about, the Greens do not what it, but cant say it now, the FDP will what to cut spending, and the SDP will what to prioritise elsewhere, in 2 years I think German defence speeding will be less than it was last year.
its a strangle particular thing to bet on, I don't think there is a market in predating defence speeding, but if you or anybody else what to do a private bet let me know.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Even if the war ends tonight - we can pray - the shift is tectonic and for real
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
And there is lots of stuff like that. Disrupted supply chains are hell....
A simple example from the past - in 1940, one of those mad British types from the comics (forget which one) pretty much stole some machine tools from Belgium. These were the tools for making 20mm gun barrels for the Hispano 404. If the UK didn't have those, it would have taken 12-18 *month* to re-create them. Doesn't matter how much money. Until then, next to no 20mm cannon for aircraft....
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gladius-Living-Fighting-Dying-Roman/dp/1408712407
The Whigs were more pro free trade and keener on constitutional reform
I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise.
The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.