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.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first
That would make an excellent billboard poster for Labour.
Why? 60% of the population own their properties and have significant wealth.
Firstly, it just sounds bad - people will associate "preservation of wealth" with the super wealthy, not someone with a £300k house in the Midlands.
Secondly, the 60% includes people with mortgages. An equitable wealth tax would be on the proportion owned as that reflects the persons wealth.
Finally, it's all about a fair balance. The effective employment tax rate is almost 45% for income over £12.5k (including employees and employers' NI). And almost 55% for income over £50k. Wealth taxes are minuscule in comparison, making young people dependent on gifts and inheritance for many things in life.
A key reason for young people struggling to purchase property is the very high levels of employment taxes. That will be a long-term disaster for the Tories.
So to avoid the tax you just need to take out a 100% interest only mortgage?
No, because if you are doing that by choice, you have the money you could have spent on the house invested in something else
Taxing houses and land is a lot easier than taxing other assets: what happens if I've invested the money in my education for example?
@HYUFD Hang on - I just twigged. Are you really also saying that to be a Tory you can’t be an atheist?
It is harder yes.
47% of the non religious voted Labour in 2017 for example compared to 40% of the population as a whole
Jesus was a Socialist.
I am not convinced at that. He certainly encouraged compassion and charity for the poor, but that isn't Socialism. I don't think Jesus expressed any real teachings of how the world should be economically or politically run, indeed he often said that his kingdom was not of this world.
I know, I was just trolling HYUFD!
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Both capitalism and socialism are materialistic philosophies, though they differ in how that money should be distributed. Jesus taught us of the world beyond material things. That is the point of the overturning of the money changers tables. Politically he was unaligned.
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
The Napoleonic Wars lasted a generation, which many phases, including no fewer than seven coalitions against the French. The curent situation is most comparable to the situation in 1813-15 when all of Europe united against France. But with nuclear weapons, which are such a wild card that they make any historical analogies of very little value.
The USA was neutral in 1813 to 1815 as was Turkey unlike now and France of course is on our side this time
Yes, and Russia is on the opposite side, apart from Ukraine.
The USA was actually at war with Britain between 1812 and 1814.
What did you do yesterday after I went out Daddy? Well after I ran over my foot with a lawnmower, I came home from hospital to discuss the political views of the Church of England with a man from Epping Town Council.
Some days are opportunities to make your kids proud of you. I'm not sure today fits the bill, frankly. Goodnight all.
@HYUFD Hang on - I just twigged. Are you really also saying that to be a Tory you can’t be an atheist?
It is harder yes.
47% of the non religious voted Labour in 2017 for example compared to 40% of the population as a whole
I'm an atheist. But I own my property outright and am comfortably off. How should I vote? It's all so confusing in this black and white world.
Culturally you are clearly non Tory even if as a property owner wealth wise you might have been
Well this is a problem for the Tories then - if we dismiss every atheist or republican or non-homeowner or whatever else as culturally non Tory then pretty soon there's only you and the Queen left, and she doesn't get a vote IIRC.
I'm in Northern Al's boat too.
And I almost never meet anyone who is openly religious. Now weddings don't have to take place in church, most of them don't - the kind of background noise of the Church of England as a cultural touchstone is ebbing: I'd be surprised if more than 10% of my friends have been in a church at all in the past three years. I'd suggest therefore that the Tories might want to cast their nets slightly wider.
No, Anglicans, monarchists and homeowners are the core Tory coalition just not necessarily all 3.
Just as the public sector, those in social housing and young people are the core Labour coalition, just not necessarily all 3
Fair enough. This all seems very alien to me though. I can see why homeowners would vote in the interests of homeowners. Obviously a LOT of nuances here, but I can see why it would hold true. But Anglicans and Monarchists - there just don't seem enough, and their interests don't seem obviously served by the Conservative Party nor threatened by the other lot. And it just doesn't seem the sort of thing one would care about enough. But that is because I am a middle-aged middle-class suburbanite and simply don't ever meet such people. And it's always dangerous to generalise from the people you know.
About 80% of the population are monarchists, even more than homeowners.
There are also still more Christians than atheists even in the UK, far less religious than most nations globally.
Monarchists and Anglicans believe in conserving their institutions as much as Conservatives do
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
The Napoleonic Wars lasted a generation, which many phases, including no fewer than seven coalitions against the French. The curent situation is most comparable to the situation in 1813-15 when all of Europe united against France. But with nuclear weapons, which are such a wild card that they make any historical analogies of very little value.
The USA was neutral in 1813 to 1815 as was Turkey unlike now and France of course is on our side this time
From 1812-14 we were at war with the USA, so hardly neutral.
stavridisj @stavridisj · 10m This is time for quiet diplomacy btwn DC and Beijing. China will place some big bets ahead. We must try 2 convince them to bet on the right side of history,not on Putin.We have our differences, but hopefully they'll see the madness of a brutal war Putin has foisted on the world
Doubt it, as they are planning a similarly mad and brutal war on Taiwan.
They import quite a bit of food from Ukraine don't they?
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
Russia, Prussia Spain, Portugal, and Austria were on our side for most of the period 1792 to 1815.
"In response to reports that Russia is seeking military equipment and other support from China, the Chinese embassy in the US said the priority right now is to ensure the tense situation does not escalate or get out of control, according to Reuters. "
It doesn't sound from that as if China is going to be rushing the missiles to Russia.
That's not a denial that the Russians asked or a denial that some aid may have been given.
China is not going to admit to supplying weapons to Russia, which is so deeply unpopular worldwide
If it happens it will be a quiet transfer via Mongolia
Fair point.
How easy would it be for the Russians to deploy Chinese arms though?
Ammunition, I get, but that would only work if the Chinese and Russian weapons are compatible.
New arms need new training, surely?
It depends what Russia has asked for/needs, examples:
As somebody posted on here have a very good missile Kr101 I think it was, that they used a lot in the first few days, but have stopped, possibly because they have run out, if so the Russians are a bit stuck as the engine for the missile is made in the Ukraine, perhaps China could give some of the engines of there missiles, or even the whole thing just repainted.
Or it could be for mundane things like tiers for trucks, remember that controversy, well the chines do make that sort of tier, they will where out quicker, but at the moment any new tiers would be greatly apricated.
Ammunition as you mention, china exports a lot of ammunition made for Russian made weapon systems so that might be easy. or other things like radios, i bet china makes cheep copy's of a lot of Russian bits.
new equipment would be harder to hide, but the Russians probably are keeping some things just in case WW3 starts, near the Finish and Estonian boarders, Russia could put borrowed Chines stuff there and then pull the last of their own equipment down to Ukraine.
it would be fascinating to know what they asked for, and what they get.
UAVs are a big Chinese export. Missile systems also - but Russia has plenty of those - and many of the Chinese products are based on Russian models. China will be keen to develop Russia as an export market, having imported large numbers of Russian weapons in the past.
"In response to reports that Russia is seeking military equipment and other support from China, the Chinese embassy in the US said the priority right now is to ensure the tense situation does not escalate or get out of control, according to Reuters. "
It doesn't sound from that as if China is going to be rushing the missiles to Russia.
That's not a denial that the Russians asked or a denial that some aid may have been given.
China is not going to admit to supplying weapons to Russia, which is so deeply unpopular worldwide
If it happens it will be a quiet transfer via Mongolia
Fair point.
How easy would it be for the Russians to deploy Chinese arms though?
Ammunition, I get, but that would only work if the Chinese and Russian weapons are compatible.
New arms need new training, surely?
It depends what Russia has asked for/needs, examples:
As somebody posted on here have a very good missile Kr101 I think it was, that they used a lot in the first few days, but have stopped, possibly because they have run out, if so the Russians are a bit stuck as the engine for the missile is made in the Ukraine, perhaps China could give some of the engines of there missiles, or even the whole thing just repainted.
Or it could be for mundane things like tiers for trucks, remember that controversy, well the chines do make that sort of tier, they will where out quicker, but at the moment any new tiers would be greatly apricated.
Ammunition as you mention, china exports a lot of ammunition made for Russian made weapon systems so that might be easy. or other things like radios, i bet china makes cheep copy's of a lot of Russian bits.
new equipment would be harder to hide, but the Russians probably are keeping some things just in case WW3 starts, near the Finish and Estonian boarders, Russia could put borrowed Chines stuff there and then pull the last of their own equipment down to Ukraine.
it would be fascinating to know what they asked for, and what they get.
From what has been reported, a very large pile of decent, encrypted radios would be good start.
The comment on the trucks in the FT was interesting - they confirmed the stories that a problem the Russians had was cheap knock-off tires, poorly maintained on some of their equipment. Tires made in China.....
They didn't confirm it, they simply referred to it - their source is a twitter link to the tyre nerd we all knew about 4 days ago. The whole article is worth analysing for its sources, almost all of which are randomers on Twitter. Very little added.
What did you do yesterday after I went out Daddy? Well after I ran over my foot with a lawnmower, I came home from hospital to discuss the political views of the Church of England with a man from Epping Town Council.
Some days are opportunities to make your kids proud of you. I'm not sure today fits the bill, frankly. Goodnight all.
After suffering a mighty wound in service of your home and family, you then grappled with deep political and religious questions against an implacable opponent who would give no quarter.
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
The Napoleonic Wars lasted a generation, which many phases, including no fewer than seven coalitions against the French. The curent situation is most comparable to the situation in 1813-15 when all of Europe united against France. But with nuclear weapons, which are such a wild card that they make any historical analogies of very little value.
The USA was neutral in 1813 to 1815 as was Turkey unlike now and France of course is on our side this time
From 1812-14 we were at war with the USA, so hardly neutral.
Making the point even more, the USA now leads NATO v Putin.
Albeit the USA was not strictly allied with Napoleon either
The war is now unwinnable for Putin. Even an unlikely military victory, eventually taking all of Ukraine over several months and installing a puppet government would be a strategic loss. Because the Ukraine resistance, political and/or military, is not going to cease. And so the Western sanctions are not going to be relaxed. Russia is going to face years of isolation.
Yet the war is most likely also unwinnable for Ukraine. Its resistance has been fearless, yet it is still overpowered militarily. While they will continue to inflict significant damage, overturning Russian gains through fighting will be difficult. All while their infrastructure is being destroyed and the country is depopulating via families fleeing the war.
Other than hoping for Putin to come to an unfortunate accident, I struggle to see a good outcome of all this for anyone. Just more death and destruction, depressing as it is.
China should be careful in remaining neutral and not supplying support to Russia, or else they will be caught up in the strength of the western public opinion backlash against the invasion.
By his own logic, Putin's started a Russian civil war with his own rule on the line. Some Russian liberals are already saying that we're watching the rebirth of Kievan Rus and that everything democratic and Western-oriented in the "Russian world" will be centred on Kiev.
When the dust has settled Russia will be a province of Kievan Rus.
Don't think that would be in Ukraine's interest. They want Russia out.
stavridisj @stavridisj · 10m This is time for quiet diplomacy btwn DC and Beijing. China will place some big bets ahead. We must try 2 convince them to bet on the right side of history,not on Putin.We have our differences, but hopefully they'll see the madness of a brutal war Putin has foisted on the world
Yep. Hegemons - to which China aspires - like orderly worlds they can dominate.
@HYUFD Hang on - I just twigged. Are you really also saying that to be a Tory you can’t be an atheist?
It is harder yes.
47% of the non religious voted Labour in 2017 for example compared to 40% of the population as a whole
Jesus was a Socialist.
I am not convinced at that. He certainly encouraged compassion and charity for the poor, but that isn't Socialism. I don't think Jesus expressed any real teachings of how the world should be economically or politically run, indeed he often said that his kingdom was not of this world.
I know, I was just trolling HYUFD!
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Both capitalism and socialism are materialistic philosophies, though they differ in how that money should be distributed. Jesus taught us of the world beyond material things. That is the point of the overturning of the money changers tables. Politically he was unaligned.
Hasn't stopped people acting otherwise for 2000 years.
@HYUFD Hang on - I just twigged. Are you really also saying that to be a Tory you can’t be an atheist?
It is harder yes.
47% of the non religious voted Labour in 2017 for example compared to 40% of the population as a whole
Jesus was a Socialist.
I am not convinced at that. He certainly encouraged compassion and charity for the poor, but that isn't Socialism. I don't think Jesus expressed any real teachings of how the world should be economically or politically run, indeed he often said that his kingdom was not of this world.
I know, I was just trolling HYUFD!
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Both capitalism and socialism are materialistic philosophies, though they differ in how that money should be distributed. Jesus taught us of the world beyond material things. That is the point of the overturning of the money changers tables. Politically he was unaligned.
Hasn't stopped people acting otherwise for 2000 years.
I think you’ll all find that God is on my side. It’s why I never ask questions.
@HYUFD Hang on - I just twigged. Are you really also saying that to be a Tory you can’t be an atheist?
It is harder yes.
47% of the non religious voted Labour in 2017 for example compared to 40% of the population as a whole
Jesus was a Socialist.
I am not convinced at that. He certainly encouraged compassion and charity for the poor, but that isn't Socialism. I don't think Jesus expressed any real teachings of how the world should be economically or politically run, indeed he often said that his kingdom was not of this world.
I know, I was just trolling HYUFD!
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Both capitalism and socialism are materialistic philosophies, though they differ in how that money should be distributed. Jesus taught us of the world beyond material things. That is the point of the overturning of the money changers tables. Politically he was unaligned.
Hasn't stopped people acting otherwise for 2000 years.
I think you’ll all find that God is on my side.
Given that Jesus was a socialist, you can have him. Given the choice between God and the money lenders, I'd keep the money lenders.
Depends on the situation. I'm happy to have him with me, but if the bailiffs are at the door someone offering a check would solve the immediate problem.
@HYUFD Hang on - I just twigged. Are you really also saying that to be a Tory you can’t be an atheist?
It is harder yes.
47% of the non religious voted Labour in 2017 for example compared to 40% of the population as a whole
Jesus was a Socialist.
I am not convinced at that. He certainly encouraged compassion and charity for the poor, but that isn't Socialism. I don't think Jesus expressed any real teachings of how the world should be economically or politically run, indeed he often said that his kingdom was not of this world.
I know, I was just trolling HYUFD!
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Both capitalism and socialism are materialistic philosophies, though they differ in how that money should be distributed. Jesus taught us of the world beyond material things. That is the point of the overturning of the money changers tables. Politically he was unaligned.
Hasn't stopped people acting otherwise for 2000 years.
I think you’ll all find that God is on my side.
Given that Jesus was a socialist, you can have him. Given the choice between God and the money lenders, I'd keep the money lenders.
Long hair? Beard? Sandals? Wittering on about the environment? He wasn’t a socialist, he was a liberal. I’ll take him because he will at least know where there’s a decent pub and I can speak to him about steam trains.
I think what scares the world witless about Putin is his bonkers ideology about Ukraine. If it was a grubby territorial dispute with Ukraine about Crimea or something they could cope with that. This is the real deal "mad man" theory, not the pretend Cummings version of it.
Putin’s attack on base near Poland “as message to West” (our papers turning it into gangster movie script) quite rightly dominates tomorrows papers. BBC called it ten minute drive from Poland, the Mirror has it 6 miles the Telegraph and Times and Mail all say 15 miles. Russia used up to 35 missiles in this attack. But something on European news media but not UK media I can find is the timing of the hit, claiming Putin had been following a group of US people into this base and chose to hit at the moment they were there (firstly, how would they know that, so our media quite right to leave such speculation alone) I rather fear this is the base used as way in for the foreign fighters for Freedom. The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
Wow. Just wow. John Gray himself could not have written a more succinct summary of why the western liberal clinton obama Fukuyama view of the future of the world was utterly deluded than Reich has penned.
mea culpa.
Fair play to him.
Putin and Trump have convinced me: I was wrong about the 21st century Robert Reich
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
Russia, Prussia Spain, Portugal, and Austria were on our side for most of the period 1792 to 1815.
Then all those Spanish ships at Trafalgar were really on the British side? No wonder we won.
Putin’s attack on base near Poland “as message to West” (our papers turning it into gangster movie script) quite rightly dominates tomorrows papers. BBC called it ten minute drive from Poland, the Mirror has it 6 miles the Telegraph and Times and Mail all say 15 miles. Russia used up to 35 missiles in this attack. But something on European news media but not UK media I can find is the timing of the hit, claiming Putin had been following a group of US people into this base and chose to hit at the moment they were there (firstly, how would they know that, so our media quite right to leave such speculation alone) I rather fear this is the base used as way in for the foreign fighters for Freedom. The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
Only days now until we are officially at war with Russia imho.
HYFD is right in the sense that Toryism *has* been reduced to simple protection of its client vote, which means elderly homeowners and the odd Russian kleptocrat.
I don’t know why he gets so much stick for pointing it out.
The onus is actually on others to explain why they continue to cheerlead for the Tories despite the truism above.
@HYUFD Hang on - I just twigged. Are you really also saying that to be a Tory you can’t be an atheist?
It is harder yes.
47% of the non religious voted Labour in 2017 for example compared to 40% of the population as a whole
Jesus was a Socialist.
I am not convinced at that. He certainly encouraged compassion and charity for the poor, but that isn't Socialism. I don't think Jesus expressed any real teachings of how the world should be economically or politically run, indeed he often said that his kingdom was not of this world.
I know, I was just trolling HYUFD!
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Both capitalism and socialism are materialistic philosophies, though they differ in how that money should be distributed. Jesus taught us of the world beyond material things. That is the point of the overturning of the money changers tables. Politically he was unaligned.
Hasn't stopped people acting otherwise for 2000 years.
I think you’ll all find that God is on my side. It’s why I never ask questions.
HYFD is right in the sense that Toryism *has* been reduced to simple protection of its client vote, which means elderly homeowners and the odd Russian kleptocrat.
I don’t know why he gets so much stick for pointing it out.
The onus is actually on others to explain why they continue to cheerlead for the Tories despite the truism above.
He gets stick for thinking it is a good thing. Very might makes right.
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
Russia, Prussia Spain, Portugal, and Austria were on our side for most of the period 1792 to 1815.
Then all those Spanish ships at Trafalgar were really on the British side? No wonder we won.
@HYUFD speaks of a narrow Christian ideal and then in the same breath supports the protection of wealth
The Jesus I know would not agree
Read the parable of the talents, he believed in invested wealth.
The Old Testament also clear stealing wealth was wrong
You think taxation is stealing?
In the New Testament tax collectors are not looked on as fine, upstanding servants of the people.
Such a difference from how tax collectors are usually looked on as in culture and society. I'm sure the Epic of Gilgamesh has them as the heroes, beloved by all.
HYFD is right in the sense that Toryism *has* been reduced to simple protection of its client vote, which means elderly homeowners and the odd Russian kleptocrat.
I don’t know why he gets so much stick for pointing it out.
The onus is actually on others to explain why they continue to cheerlead for the Tories despite the truism above.
He's letting the 'I'm no fan of BJ but there is a war on and it's all Corbyn's fault anyway' side down.
HYFD is right in the sense that Toryism *has* been reduced to simple protection of its client vote, which means elderly homeowners and the odd Russian kleptocrat.
I don’t know why he gets so much stick for pointing it out.
The onus is actually on others to explain why they continue to cheerlead for the Tories despite the truism above.
He gets stick for thinking it is a good thing. Very might makes right.
No he doesn’t, he mostly attracts criticism from habitual Tory PBs that can’t handle the truth.
Non-Tory PBs know he is ethically batshit and largely ignore him.
@HYUFD speaks of a narrow Christian ideal and then in the same breath supports the protection of wealth
The Jesus I know would not agree
Read the parable of the talents, he believed in invested wealth.
The Old Testament also clear stealing wealth was wrong
You think taxation is stealing?
In the New Testament tax collectors are not looked on as fine, upstanding servants of the people.
Yes they are. Romans 13 could hardly be clearer
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Wow. Just wow. John Gray himself could not have written a more succinct summary of why the western liberal clinton obama Fukuyama view of the future of the world was utterly deluded than Reich has penned.
mea culpa.
Fair play to him.
Putin and Trump have convinced me: I was wrong about the 21st century Robert Reich
Including: "Civilization will never again be held hostage by crazy isolated men with the power to wreak havoc."
And more positively, this. … They are also displaying with inspiring clarity that democracy cannot be taken for granted. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It’s not what governments do. Democracy is what people do.…
@HYUFD speaks of a narrow Christian ideal and then in the same breath supports the protection of wealth
The Jesus I know would not agree
Read the parable of the talents, he believed in invested wealth.
The Old Testament also clear stealing wealth was wrong
You think taxation is stealing?
In the New Testament tax collectors are not looked on as fine, upstanding servants of the people.
Yes they are. Romans 13 could hardly be clearer
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Feels like the sort of thing that a governor who wanted taxes paid almost slipped in there.
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
Russia, Prussia Spain, Portugal, and Austria were on our side for most of the period 1792 to 1815.
Then all those Spanish ships at Trafalgar were really on the British side? No wonder we won.
'96 to '08 (so for12 years) Spain was on the side of the French. That leaves 10 years when they were against them. ('93 - '95 then '08-'15) if my maths is right.
I do find the highlighting of moral messages in brief passages of biblical text to be quite fascinating, as they do indeed often have very clear morals, but equally some very learned people and their societies for a very long time mostly saw no problem with, say, slavery, as being incompatible with any of those passages, even though eventually many did.
@HYUFD speaks of a narrow Christian ideal and then in the same breath supports the protection of wealth
The Jesus I know would not agree
Read the parable of the talents, he believed in invested wealth.
The Old Testament also clear stealing wealth was wrong
You think taxation is stealing?
In the New Testament tax collectors are not looked on as fine, upstanding servants of the people.
Yes they are. Romans 13 could hardly be clearer
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Putin’s attack on base near Poland “as message to West” (our papers turning it into gangster movie script) quite rightly dominates tomorrows papers. BBC called it ten minute drive from Poland, the Mirror has it 6 miles the Telegraph and Times and Mail all say 15 miles. Russia used up to 35 missiles in this attack. But something on European news media but not UK media I can find is the timing of the hit, claiming Putin had been following a group of US people into this base and chose to hit at the moment they were there (firstly, how would they know that, so our media quite right to leave such speculation alone) I rather fear this is the base used as way in for the foreign fighters for Freedom. The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
Only days now until we are officially at war with Russia imho.
In this article, articulate US senator rips into White House NFZ position, and Deputy Secretary of State seriously believes Putin is now keen to negotiate? The US seems all over the road?
Biden seems to have much more pressure on him from his political establishment to harden position than Boris has here? 40 senators signed joint letter demanding Biden supply Ukraine planes. That’s a lot openly revolting against Biden’s position. I reckon we need to keep an eye on this growing, and signs of it actually shifting White House position. I wonder if UK will import this mood from US?
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
Russia, Prussia Spain, Portugal, and Austria were on our side for most of the period 1792 to 1815.
Then all those Spanish ships at Trafalgar were really on the British side? No wonder we won.
'96 to '08 (so for12 years) Spain was on the side of the French. That leaves 10 years when they were against them. ('93 - '95 then '08-'15) if my maths is right.
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
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
The administrations of Pitt the Younger and Liverpool raised probate and legacy duties during the Napoleonic wars. A government that would be considered ultra right wing in modern terms was prepared to accept that on occasion, their wealthy core supporters had to make sacrfiices for the good of the nation.
If they could that understand that, so should we.
Pitt also introduced income tax.
But the Napoleonic Wars was effectively us alone v Napoleon's France who dominated most of continental Europe.
Not us and most of continental Europe, the USA, Turkey and Canada v Putin's Russia as now.
2% of gdp on defence is quite enough for us now
The wars of 1793-1815 were absolutely not us alone v France. The UK poured money into funding its continental allies as well as funding its own war effort.
Much of Italy, the low countries, Germany and Spain were under Napoleon's control.
The Ottoman Empire and United States were neutral.
It is is not remotely comparable to now where France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United States are all in NATO with us to contain Putin
Russia, Prussia Spain, Portugal, and Austria were on our side for most of the period 1792 to 1815.
Then all those Spanish ships at Trafalgar were really on the British side? No wonder we won.
'96 to '08 (so for12 years) Spain was on the side of the French. That leaves 10 years when they were against them. ('93 - '95 then '08-'15) if my maths is right.
@HYUFD speaks of a narrow Christian ideal and then in the same breath supports the protection of wealth
The Jesus I know would not agree
Read the parable of the talents, he believed in invested wealth.
The Old Testament also clear stealing wealth was wrong
You think taxation is stealing?
In the New Testament tax collectors are not looked on as fine, upstanding servants of the people.
Yes they are. Romans 13 could hardly be clearer
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Also "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar", said by the Big Dog himself.
Putin’s attack on base near Poland “as message to West” (our papers turning it into gangster movie script) quite rightly dominates tomorrows papers. BBC called it ten minute drive from Poland, the Mirror has it 6 miles the Telegraph and Times and Mail all say 15 miles. Russia used up to 35 missiles in this attack. But something on European news media but not UK media I can find is the timing of the hit, claiming Putin had been following a group of US people into this base and chose to hit at the moment they were there (firstly, how would they know that, so our media quite right to leave such speculation alone) I rather fear this is the base used as way in for the foreign fighters for Freedom. The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
Only days now until we are officially at war with Russia imho.
In this article, articulate US senator rips into White House NFZ position, and Deputy Secretary of State seriously believes Putin is now keen to negotiate? The US seems all over the road?
Biden seems to have much more pressure on him from his political establishment to harden position than Boris has here? 40 senators signed joint letter demanding Biden supply Ukraine planes. That’s a lot openly revolting against Biden’s position. I reckon we need to keep an eye on this growing, and signs of it actually shifting White House position. I wonder if UK will import this mood from US?
NEXTA @nexta_tv · 1h ❗️Zelensky said that the task of the #Ukrainian delegation in negotiations with the Russian Federation is to achieve his meeting with Putin
He also stated that the goal of negotiations with the #Russian Federation is to obtain "effective guarantees."
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
Oh come on, you can do better than that: how about the tectonic Teutonic shift.
Through the headlines, such as restrictions on Chelsea FC, are you left with the impression Roman Abramovich is quite and properly sanctioned?
One story bubbling under I suspect will soon erupt Monday and Tuesday through the war coverage, is Why has Abramovich’s “right-hand man” not yet been sanctioned? Abramovich gave him a super yacht, jolly nice gift if you expect nothing in return.
3 of 4 really strong impenetrable walls, but the 4th is just a wide open space you can pass anything out through? You see what I mean? Is it done proper, or are we the people being conned?
Onto Wednesday. But Starmer won’t lead on this on Wednesday. Starmer will ask 6 questions Ed Davey 2 on the most serious lapse of Boris Johnson’s judgement yet - a hundred times worse than Partygate.
“Are you aware your good friend had a campaign to infiltrate the establishment?” “Not a friend? How many visits to villa and castle in Italy? How much of free flights, accommodation and private cars? Is there any such thing as a free lunch?” “At the time of these free flights, visits to villa and castles, were you aware your friend suggested MI6 killed Alexander Litvinenko, played down invasion of Crimea, said Putin showed leadership in Syria and Russians thanked Putin for “unimaginable freedoms, “regained sense of national pride?” Not aware? Everyone else seemed aware.” “At what point did you decide to recommend your friend a peerage, and for what reasons?” “When you were told no, blocked on national security grounds, what did you do next?”
Parked for now by Conservative MPs, obviously, even wee Ross has withdrawn his letter, but once the Ukraine war is in a new phase, hard to see how Boris explains this away to MPs. In the meantime, the opposition parties are going to have a field day. They’ve been hollowing Boris out with party spoons, they’ve just been handed an ermine wrapped Dave Crockett 😮
Putin’s attack on base near Poland “as message to West” (our papers turning it into gangster movie script) quite rightly dominates tomorrows papers. BBC called it ten minute drive from Poland, the Mirror has it 6 miles the Telegraph and Times and Mail all say 15 miles. Russia used up to 35 missiles in this attack. But something on European news media but not UK media I can find is the timing of the hit, claiming Putin had been following a group of US people into this base and chose to hit at the moment they were there (firstly, how would they know that, so our media quite right to leave such speculation alone) I rather fear this is the base used as way in for the foreign fighters for Freedom. The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
Only days now until we are officially at war with Russia imho.
In this article, articulate US senator rips into White House NFZ position, and Deputy Secretary of State seriously believes Putin is now keen to negotiate? The US seems all over the road?
Biden seems to have much more pressure on him from his political establishment to harden position than Boris has here? 40 senators signed joint letter demanding Biden supply Ukraine planes. That’s a lot openly revolting against Biden’s position. I reckon we need to keep an eye on this growing, and signs of it actually shifting White House position. I wonder if UK will import this mood from US?
The forty signatories of the letter are all Republican Senators, yet it’s still quite a block publicly saying they would have made opposite decision than Biden on Polish migs.
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
Oh come on, you can do better than that: how about the tectonic Teutonic shift.
On the second point first, Cyclefree posted yesterday we should say Bolshevik instead of Nazi in this case, and I was reminded of the Aldous Huxley quote I heard a billion times in art college, we naturally presume we understand what someone is saying, but everyone is an island in its own universe, in this case, UK not invaded or occupied by Germany in world war 2 it’s possible as both sides in this conflict use the word at each other, NAZI has a different mean to them than what we think of.
On the first point, I am sure China is already helping Russia. John made the point near start of this thread he hopes we are up to much more double handed and under the radar help to Ukraine - Russia’s such a key ally of China on the world stage, in the great game, OF COURSE China is helping them where it can under the radar. It’s up to us to catch them at it!
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.
The problem with the call for greater taxes is that the tax burden is the highest it has been for 60 years. On top of that debt to GDP is 100%
Too many politicians and indeed too many members of the public still seem to be of the view that the Government has endless pots of money.
More money for defence, for social care, for the NHS, for Net Zero, for levelling up. Something is going to have to give.
It was probably higher in the 20 years before 1980, to be fair.
The figures are skewed as there were so many public corporations back then, which were excluded from the figures.
I don't think that's what skewing the figures: it's simply the fact that the population has gotten dramatically older, and that means that the proportion of wages diverted to pay for the pensions and healthcare of the old is rising.
Putin’s attack on base near Poland “as message to West” (our papers turning it into gangster movie script) quite rightly dominates tomorrows papers. BBC called it ten minute drive from Poland, the Mirror has it 6 miles the Telegraph and Times and Mail all say 15 miles. Russia used up to 35 missiles in this attack. But something on European news media but not UK media I can find is the timing of the hit, claiming Putin had been following a group of US people into this base and chose to hit at the moment they were there (firstly, how would they know that, so our media quite right to leave such speculation alone) I rather fear this is the base used as way in for the foreign fighters for Freedom. The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
Only days now until we are officially at war with Russia imho.
In this article, articulate US senator rips into White House NFZ position, and Deputy Secretary of State seriously believes Putin is now keen to negotiate? The US seems all over the road?
Biden seems to have much more pressure on him from his political establishment to harden position than Boris has here? 40 senators signed joint letter demanding Biden supply Ukraine planes. That’s a lot openly revolting against Biden’s position. I reckon we need to keep an eye on this growing, and signs of it actually shifting White House position. I wonder if UK will import this mood from US?
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
Oh come on, you can do better than that: how about the tectonic Teutonic shift.
On the second point first, Cyclefree posted yesterday we should say Bolshevik instead of Nazi in this case, and I was reminded of the Aldous Huxley quote I heard a billion times in art college, we naturally presume we understand what someone is saying, but everyone is an island in its own universe, in this case, UK not invaded or occupied by Germany in world war 2 it’s possible as both sides in this conflict use the word at each other, NAZI has a different mean to them than what we think of.
On the first point, I am sure China is already helping Russia. John made the point near start of this thread he hopes we are up to much more double handed and under the radar help to Ukraine - Russia’s such a key ally of China on the world stage, in the great game, OF COURSE China is helping them where it can under the radar. It’s up to us to catch them at it!
PS I think a band got their name from this essay
We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies - all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes. Most island universes are sufficiently like one another to Permit of inferential understanding or even of mutual empathy or "feeling into." Thus, remembering our own bereavements and humiliations, we can condole with others in analogous circumstances, can put ourselves (always, of course, in a slightly Pickwickian sense) in their places. But in certain cases communication between universes is incomplete or even nonexistent. The mind is its own place, and the Places inhabited by the insane and the exceptionally gifted are so different from the places where ordinary men and women live, that there is little or no common ground of memory to serve as a basis for understanding or fellow feeling. Words are uttered, but fail to enlighten. The things and events to which the symbols refer belong to mutually exclusive realms of experience.
NEXTA @nexta_tv · 1h ❗️Zelensky said that the task of the #Ukrainian delegation in negotiations with the Russian Federation is to achieve his meeting with Putin
He also stated that the goal of negotiations with the #Russian Federation is to obtain "effective guarantees."
Putin’s attack on base near Poland “as message to West” (our papers turning it into gangster movie script) quite rightly dominates tomorrows papers. BBC called it ten minute drive from Poland, the Mirror has it 6 miles the Telegraph and Times and Mail all say 15 miles. Russia used up to 35 missiles in this attack. But something on European news media but not UK media I can find is the timing of the hit, claiming Putin had been following a group of US people into this base and chose to hit at the moment they were there (firstly, how would they know that, so our media quite right to leave such speculation alone) I rather fear this is the base used as way in for the foreign fighters for Freedom. The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
Only days now until we are officially at war with Russia imho.
In this article, articulate US senator rips into White House NFZ position, and Deputy Secretary of State seriously believes Putin is now keen to negotiate? The US seems all over the road?
Biden seems to have much more pressure on him from his political establishment to harden position than Boris has here? 40 senators signed joint letter demanding Biden supply Ukraine planes. That’s a lot openly revolting against Biden’s position. I reckon we need to keep an eye on this growing, and signs of it actually shifting White House position. I wonder if UK will import this mood from US?
The forty signatories of the letter are all Republican Senators, yet it’s still quite a block publicly saying they would have made opposite decision than Biden on Polish migs.
And of note that 80% of Republican Senators are taking a more stridently anti-Putin stance than Biden. At least there are still some old-style Republicans out there post-Trump.
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.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Let's put aside inheritance for a moment, where we're clearly never going to agree on what a sensible political position to take is. Most of the CofE congregation vote Tory? Do you have any polling evidence for that (I bet you do.) It seems unlikely, given they choose to spend their time listening to CofE vicars, who in my experience seem even further left than the arts bloc (including on any number of subjects that the Bible surely took no view whatsoever on, like climate change and transsexuals). The CofE may be apolitical in principle, but every public utterance it makes comes from the place where the Labour Party and Green Party meet. Many of them seem to actively make it clear that being a Christian is incompatible with being a Tory. Do these people's acolytes really vote Tory? Remarkable if so. Almost as if they needn't bother.
On transsexuals, the only bible passage I can think of is this one;
"In response to reports that Russia is seeking military equipment and other support from China, the Chinese embassy in the US said the priority right now is to ensure the tense situation does not escalate or get out of control, according to Reuters. "
It doesn't sound from that as if China is going to be rushing the missiles to Russia.
That's not a denial that the Russians asked or a denial that some aid may have been given.
China is not going to admit to supplying weapons to Russia, which is so deeply unpopular worldwide
If it happens it will be a quiet transfer via Mongolia
While that's true, it's also true that any weapons "lent" to the Russians are likely to be captured by a Ukrainian farmer and posted to TikTok within 48 hours.
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.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first
That would make an excellent billboard poster for Labour.
Why? 60% of the population own their properties and have significant wealth.
Firstly, it just sounds bad - people will associate "preservation of wealth" with the super wealthy, not someone with a £300k house in the Midlands.
Secondly, the 60% includes people with mortgages. An equitable wealth tax would be on the proportion owned as that reflects the persons wealth.
Finally, it's all about a fair balance. The effective employment tax rate is almost 45% for income over £12.5k (including employees and employers' NI). And almost 55% for income over £50k. Wealth taxes are minuscule in comparison, making young people dependent on gifts and inheritance for many things in life.
A key reason for young people struggling to purchase property is the very high levels of employment taxes. That will be a long-term disaster for the Tories.
So to avoid the tax you just need to take out a 100% interest only mortgage?
"In response to reports that Russia is seeking military equipment and other support from China, the Chinese embassy in the US said the priority right now is to ensure the tense situation does not escalate or get out of control, according to Reuters. "
It doesn't sound from that as if China is going to be rushing the missiles to Russia.
That's not a denial that the Russians asked or a denial that some aid may have been given.
China is not going to admit to supplying weapons to Russia, which is so deeply unpopular worldwide
If it happens it will be a quiet transfer via Mongolia
While that's true, it's also true that any weapons "lent" to the Russians are likely to be captured by a Ukrainian farmer and posted to TikTok within 48 hours.
Have they never done arms deals with each other so have some interchangeable kit? Such as missiles? Drones? Recovery vehicles? Mineploughs. Night vision? Surface to air.
What about logistical supplies that’s not quite so obvious. Blood. medicine. Oxygen.
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.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Let's put aside inheritance for a moment, where we're clearly never going to agree on what a sensible political position to take is. Most of the CofE congregation vote Tory? Do you have any polling evidence for that (I bet you do.) It seems unlikely, given they choose to spend their time listening to CofE vicars, who in my experience seem even further left than the arts bloc (including on any number of subjects that the Bible surely took no view whatsoever on, like climate change and transsexuals). The CofE may be apolitical in principle, but every public utterance it makes comes from the place where the Labour Party and Green Party meet. Many of them seem to actively make it clear that being a Christian is incompatible with being a Tory. Do these people's acolytes really vote Tory? Remarkable if so. Almost as if they needn't bother.
On transsexuals, the only bible passage I can think of is this one;
"In response to reports that Russia is seeking military equipment and other support from China, the Chinese embassy in the US said the priority right now is to ensure the tense situation does not escalate or get out of control, according to Reuters. "
It doesn't sound from that as if China is going to be rushing the missiles to Russia.
That's not a denial that the Russians asked or a denial that some aid may have been given.
China is not going to admit to supplying weapons to Russia, which is so deeply unpopular worldwide
If it happens it will be a quiet transfer via Mongolia
While that's true, it's also true that any weapons "lent" to the Russians are likely to be captured by a Ukrainian farmer and posted to TikTok within 48 hours.
Have they never done arms deals with each other so have some interchangeable kit? Such as missiles? Drones? Recovery vehicles? Mineploughs. Night vision? Surface to air.
What about logistical supplies that’s not quite so obvious. Blood. medicine. Oxygen.
Pundits on Russian state TV advocate implementing public hangings in Ukraine once Russia's dominance is established. If you speak Russian, here is one example (watch). Other pundits later agreed, one of them noting that DPR/LPR constitution conveniently permits the death penalty.
Pundits on Russian state TV advocate implementing public hangings in Ukraine once Russia's dominance is established. If you speak Russian, here is one example (watch). Other pundits later agreed, one of them noting that DPR/LPR constitution conveniently permits the death penalty.
Pundits on Russian state TV advocate implementing public hangings in Ukraine once Russia's dominance is established. If you speak Russian, here is one example (watch). Other pundits later agreed, one of them noting that DPR/LPR constitution conveniently permits the death penalty.
It's a well known fact that hanging the locals engenders a great deal of positive feeling towards to any occupying force.
… I'm only just starting to understand the scale and extent of Russian atrocities in Kyiv region over the past 2 weeks. It's unbelievable. It's not just Irpin, Bucha, Hostomel, Borodyanka etc. Dozens of smaller villages were completely terrorized, cut off, people were executed... https://twitter.com/IKoshiw/status/1503049053210300417
Pundits on Russian state TV advocate implementing public hangings in Ukraine once Russia's dominance is established. If you speak Russian, here is one example (watch). Other pundits later agreed, one of them noting that DPR/LPR constitution conveniently permits the death penalty.
Pundits on Russian state TV advocate implementing public hangings in Ukraine once Russia's dominance is established. If you speak Russian, here is one example (watch). Other pundits later agreed, one of them noting that DPR/LPR constitution conveniently permits the death penalty.
It's a well known fact that hanging the locals engenders a great deal of positive feeling towards to any occupying force.
The programme apparently showed clips of mass hangings carried out by the Soviets in Kyiv in 1946. That the hangings were of Nazis reinforces the current propaganda. They mean this shit.
The use of terror on a massive scale was Soviet 101. The recent glorification of Stalin is not accidental.
Comments
The USA was actually at war with Britain between 1812 and 1814.
Some days are opportunities to make your kids proud of you. I'm not sure today fits the bill, frankly. Goodnight all.
There are also still more Christians than atheists even in the UK, far less religious than most nations globally.
Monarchists and Anglicans believe in conserving their institutions as much as Conservatives do
And taxing wealth is not stealing
Maybe also communication equipment.
GOP Congressman for North Carolina’s 11th district.
Liz Cheney
@Liz_Cheney
·
Mar 10
Another member of the Putin wing of the
@GOP
https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1502043295748345857
Taxing wealth excessively is arguably stealing
It's how you tell them that counts, @cookie.
Albeit the USA was not strictly allied with Napoleon either
The west claim 35 dead 134 injured, the Russians claim 180 foreign fighters and much incoming equipment destroyed. ☹️
mea culpa.
Fair play to him.
Putin and Trump have convinced me: I was wrong about the 21st century
Robert Reich
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/13/putin-trump-ukraine-russia-invasion-war-21st-century
Including: "Civilization will never again be held hostage by crazy isolated men with the power to wreak havoc."
I don’t know why he gets so much stick for pointing it out.
The onus is actually on others to explain why they continue to cheerlead for the Tories despite the truism above.
You never heard of Salamanca?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War
GOP was the party of Eisenhower. Incredible to think how far it has fallen.
Non-Tory PBs know he is ethically batshit and largely ignore him.
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
… They are also displaying with inspiring clarity that democracy cannot be taken for granted. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It’s not what governments do. Democracy is what people do.…
Biden seems to have much more pressure on him from his political establishment to harden position than Boris has here? 40 senators signed joint letter demanding Biden supply Ukraine planes. That’s a lot openly revolting against Biden’s position. I reckon we need to keep an eye on this growing, and signs of it actually shifting White House position. I wonder if UK will import this mood from US?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/13/biden-adviser-rejects-republican-call-close-skies-over-ukraine
This new GOP basically does not believe in America, democracy and especially in the foundation Declaration of Independence text.
"You have a republic madam... if you can keep it" said Jefferson to a woman waiting for news of the foundation of the USA.
Sajid Javid
@sajidjavid
·
2h
I can confirm that 21 very ill Ukrainian children with cancer have landed safely in UK this evening.
NEXTA
@nexta_tv
·
1h
❗️Zelensky said that the task of the #Ukrainian delegation in negotiations with the Russian Federation is to achieve his meeting with Putin
He also stated that the goal of negotiations with the #Russian Federation is to obtain "effective guarantees."
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv
One story bubbling under I suspect will soon erupt Monday and Tuesday through the war coverage, is Why has Abramovich’s “right-hand man” not yet been sanctioned? Abramovich gave him a super yacht, jolly nice gift if you expect nothing in return.
3 of 4 really strong impenetrable walls, but the 4th is just a wide open space you can pass anything out through? You see what I mean? Is it done proper, or are we the people being conned?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/12/why-has-abramovichs-billionaire-friend-been-left-off-the-uk-sanctions-list
Onto Wednesday. But Starmer won’t lead on this on Wednesday. Starmer will ask 6 questions Ed Davey 2 on the most serious lapse of Boris Johnson’s judgement yet - a hundred times worse than Partygate.
“Are you aware your good friend had a campaign to infiltrate the establishment?”
“Not a friend? How many visits to villa and castle in Italy? How much of free flights, accommodation and private cars? Is there any such thing as a free lunch?”
“At the time of these free flights, visits to villa and castles, were you aware your friend suggested MI6 killed Alexander Litvinenko, played down invasion of Crimea, said Putin showed leadership in Syria and Russians thanked Putin for “unimaginable freedoms, “regained sense of national pride?” Not aware? Everyone else seemed aware.”
“At what point did you decide to recommend your friend a peerage, and for what reasons?”
“When you were told no, blocked on national security grounds, what did you do next?”
Parked for now by Conservative MPs, obviously, even wee Ross has withdrawn his letter, but once the Ukraine war is in a new phase, hard to see how Boris explains this away to MPs. In the meantime, the opposition parties are going to have a field day. They’ve been hollowing Boris out with party spoons, they’ve just been handed an ermine wrapped Dave Crockett 😮
On the first point, I am sure China is already helping Russia. John made the point near start of this thread he hopes we are up to much more double handed and under the radar help to Ukraine - Russia’s such a key ally of China on the world stage, in the great game, OF COURSE China is helping them where it can under the radar. It’s up to us to catch them at it!
We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies - all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes. Most island universes are sufficiently like one another to Permit of inferential understanding or even of mutual empathy or "feeling into." Thus, remembering our own bereavements and humiliations, we can condole with others in analogous circumstances, can put ourselves (always, of course, in a slightly Pickwickian sense) in their places. But in certain cases communication between universes is incomplete or even nonexistent. The mind is its own place, and the Places inhabited by the insane and the exceptionally gifted are so different from the places where ordinary men and women live, that there is little or no common ground of memory to serve as a basis for understanding or fellow feeling. Words are uttered, but fail to enlighten. The things and events to which the symbols refer belong to mutually exclusive realms of experience.
If our hero wants a showdown meeting with blofeld, I shall pray for him to have it.
Good night PB 🙋♀️
And let's be clear: the Bible would have said "A person with a cervix shall not wear a man's garment" if it opposed self identification.
What about logistical supplies that’s not quite so obvious. Blood. medicine. Oxygen.
Intelligence from satellites, spy networks.
https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/blog/china-trends-3-china-and-russia-brothers-arms
https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1503111660638068736
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1503149624789504004
Big ‘even the worst anti immigration ****s will have problems condemning this and we can definitely keep track of 21 sick kids’ energy.
https://twitter.com/IKoshiw/status/1503049053210300417
They mean this shit.
The use of terror on a massive scale was Soviet 101. The recent glorification of Stalin is not accidental.