"The Met Office has warned that severe cold weather is set to hit the UK this week, with overnight temperatures plummeting to -6C (21F) in some places.
Snow is likely in northern Scotland, although temperatures will be low enough to make it a possibility anywhere in the country.
Frost and ice are also expected.
People are being urged to use their heating, despite rising energy prices, and to look out for people who are especially vulnerable. ...
The World Health Organization considers an "adequately warm home" as reaching as 21C in living rooms and 18C in bedrooms - but studies have shown that the average temperature that people will be living in if they can't afford to heat their homes is only 10C."
21C is too warm and 10C is obviously way too cold. I'd say down to 16C works if people are wrapped up enough and reasonably active around the house. 18-19C if they are completely sedentary.
Totally agree. When I started dated my now wife, her mum's house was at 25 deg C. Far too warm. Unpleasantly warm. Now, for various reasons, she has the thermostat at 16 deg C and copes very well. I would wager a women decided that 21 deg C was adequately warm, not a man...
When we had children, the advice was 18c to avoid dehydration in the night. My wife insisted on 21c on the grounds it was freezing. As a South American, she seemed to find anything less than 30 horrible.
I found that not having to get up twice a night to get another glass of water was quite nice.
On average, indeed. Though contrary to the suggestion earlier, the 21C was recommended by men, and is for men's bodies. If it were up to women, the number would be even higher.
Though 21 is what I'd go for, more out of habit than anything else, if money/gas were not an issue I would in a forced-choice much prefer 25 over 18.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
"The Met Office has warned that severe cold weather is set to hit the UK this week, with overnight temperatures plummeting to -6C (21F) in some places.
Snow is likely in northern Scotland, although temperatures will be low enough to make it a possibility anywhere in the country.
Frost and ice are also expected.
People are being urged to use their heating, despite rising energy prices, and to look out for people who are especially vulnerable. ...
The World Health Organization considers an "adequately warm home" as reaching as 21C in living rooms and 18C in bedrooms - but studies have shown that the average temperature that people will be living in if they can't afford to heat their homes is only 10C."
21C is too warm and 10C is obviously way too cold. I'd say down to 16C works if people are wrapped up enough and reasonably active around the house. 18-19C if they are completely sedentary.
Totally agree. When I started dated my now wife, her mum's house was at 25 deg C. Far too warm. Unpleasantly warm. Now, for various reasons, she has the thermostat at 16 deg C and copes very well. I would wager a women decided that 21 deg C was adequately warm, not a man...
When we had children, the advice was 18c to avoid dehydration in the night. My wife insisted on 21c on the grounds it was freezing. As a South American, she seemed to find anything less than 30 horrible.
I found that not having to get up twice a night to get another glass of water was quite nice.
On average, indeed. Though contrary to the suggestion earlier, the 21C was recommended by men, and is for men's bodies. If it were up to women, the number would be even higher.
Though 21 is what I'd go for, more out of habit than anything else, if money/gas were not an issue I would in a forced-choice much prefer 25 over 18.
18c was recommended by a health visitor. Female, lots of kids - her idea of credentials was showing me a string of photos of her grandchildren. And very much Afro-Caribbean, come to think of it.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Also spot the logical fallacy. It's only the ones who didn't spaff the wealth against the mansion wall whose families have succeeded in "preservation". The argument doesn't consider the huge amounts squandered on fripperies and luxuries rather than useful investment. The Yorkshre saying 'rags to riches and back again in three generations' applies.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
"The report will put forward 40 recommendations, including proposals for handing new economic powers to English mayors, local authorities and devolved governments."
My suspicion is he might attempt to carve England into bits. Labour have form on that.
It's this kind of thinking that has made England a highly centralised and poorly run country. We need far more local powers and local accountability so that we can try new approaches to things. I'd much rather live in an England that has been carved into bits if that means that each of the bits is better run.
Devolution to English regions should only be done by an English government.
Fine, if you really think that England needs 4 or 5 layers of government. An English government would be just as remote and out of touch as a UK government as England is 90% odd of the UK population-wise. As a Londoners I would really like to have a much more powerful government for our city-region. I grew up in the NE of England (as well as Scotland) and I know how remote and out of touch the UK government seems there. Our governance system has comprehensively failed. It's time for a break with the past.
Indeed. Devolution within all the regions, and a new federated structure between the nations.
That's in fact the only thing that will hold the UK together in the long-term, much to the chagrin of Putin.
People in the NW, SW, etc., of England won't buy regional administrations just to keep Scotland in Britain. Who in England gives a toss whether Scotland leaves or not? No other (geographical) fault line is likely to crack, except in NI which is a special case. Nobody cares about the long term. It might as well not exist.
‘Who in England gives a toss whether Scotland leaves or not?’
The governing Tory party, the soon to be governing Labour party and those eternal bridesmaids the LDs unfortunately.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
Whoever wins England vs France instantly becomes a strong second favourite. Frankly I think either would have the beating of Brazil.
As for GB Utd, it might annoy some to say so but is there a single Welsh or Scotsman that would make it into the football side right now? Possibly a fit Kieran Tierney at left back. But not Bale or Ramsay anymore. The squad would have more depth I grant you.
Intriguing too that the Wales wonder decade has not just coincided with the Bale era but also Swansea and Cardiff being premier league regulars. Proud Scots take note and try again to get the Old Firm in the pyramid south of the border to make a true British Premier League.
Couldn't give much of a feck about which league Celtic and Rangers play in (aside from making parking easier in my bit a few days a year) but it'd be lovely to see the proud Brits that make up much of the Rangers' support exporting their culture to English cities on away days.
The recent decline of Scottish football ought to concern the Scottish Government. Scottish teams no longer dominate Europe; Scottish players are no longer significant in the EPL. What's gone wrong up there? School playing fields sold off? It cannot be money or size because Wales is still there.
It’s odd isn’t it. The premier league / first division always used to have a good number of Scots playing for the top sides.
MONEY
Scots don’t like it? Or people with effectively unlimited budgets will hire elsewhere?
Premier league and even some of teh lower leagues have teh money to buy the best abroad nowadays. Scots going to play in the top English leagues years ago meant a much stronger pool of players and hence national team. Also fact that Scottish teams also buy more foreign players does not help either. A sad reflection on the modern game, it is all just money. Used to love teh FA cup and Fair Cups , etc , the big teams had to go to all sorts of places and face tough games in fields etc. Now they are all pampered , seeded to make sure no tough games till the selected few meet in later rounds so more money can be made. News today that Rashford had to fly home as over 300K of watches were nicked from his house says it all.
Sterling
Not all English people look the same
Another Fcuking arsehole, it was an overpaid arsehole football player who cares which one it was you cretin , crawl back under your rock.
Racism followed by foul mouthed abuse - you must be a Scottish nationalist!
You fcukwitted cretin , there was nothing racist about it other than in your tiny bigoted turd of a brain. I got a name wrong. Now fcuk off back under your rock where you belong. @ThePoliticalParty
6/10 - you fired up the invective, but there is little lyrical quality in the insults.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
You said 'Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible,'
So effectively advocating communism and driving out anybody who has inherited land, farms or businesses which their family have managed and preserved for generations.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
Something to stew about, anyway
(For those who don’t know, Putney Pies is a shop just across the road from the church in Putney where the Putney debates were held. Until the construction of the London super sewer used the foreshore of the river in front, a cellar under Putney pies led to an excellent riverside drinking area - the cellar itself was/is a late night bar)
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
Technically land is taxed when sold or inherited. But the list of exceptions to the latter, in particular, is eye-opening. It is calculated to pamper the wealthy landowner and screw the middling. Farmland and associated buildings and equipment, for instance, go free ... ditto businesses. Yet if I inherit a share in a business it is liable for IHT.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
Technically land is taxed when sold or inherited. But the list of exceptions to the latter, in particular, is eye-opening. It is calculated to pamper the wealthy landowner and screw the middling. Farmland and associated buildings and equipment, for instance, go free ... ditto businesses. Yet if I inherit a share in a business it is liable for IHT.
A genuine concern in the past was that farms would be broken into smaller and smaller pieces until non-viable. Sell a field to pay the taxes on the farm etc…
In some countries this has resulted in most agricultural land being held by mega agri businesses.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
You said 'Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible,'
So effectively advocating communism and driving out anybody who has inherited land, farms or businesses which their family have managed and preserved for generations.
No, not communism, taxation.
If someone inherits a farm then yes of course that should be liable to tax, just the same as any other income earned or inheritance should be. The profits of the farm ought to be more than enough to cover that tax, and if its not then the inheritor ought to sell up to someone who can run it better. That isn't communism, that's a free market, let people make their own choices and don't lock people out based on accidents of birth.
Though we charge increasing rates of tax on income on a sliding scale so that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Perhaps land could be done the same way too, the more you own, the more you pay?
Why should land be exempt from tax, but income shouldn't be?
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
I've been waiting a lung time for a gut pun.
Yes, they've all been tripe.
Well, it is difficult to be cheerful at the moment as we live intestine times.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
Technically land is taxed when sold or inherited. But the list of exceptions to the latter, in particular, is eye-opening. It is calculated to pamper the wealthy landowner and screw the middling. Farmland and associated buildings and equipment, for instance, go free ... ditto businesses. Yet if I inherit a share in a business it is liable for IHT.
Indeed, absolutely, all those exemptions ought to be abolished.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
I've been waiting a lung time for a gut pun.
Yes, they've all been tripe.
Well, it is difficult to be cheerful at the moment as we live intestine times.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
You said 'Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible,'
So effectively advocating communism and driving out anybody who has inherited land, farms or businesses which their family have managed and preserved for generations.
No, not communism, taxation.
If someone inherits a farm then yes of course that should be liable to tax, just the same as any other income earned or inheritance should be. The profits of the farm ought to be more than enough to cover that tax, and if its not then the inheritor ought to sell up to someone who can run it better. That isn't communism, that's a free market, let people make their own choices and don't lock people out based on accidents of birth.
Though we charge increasing rates of tax on income on a sliding scale so that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Perhaps land could be done the same way too, the more you own, the more you pay?
Why should land be exempt from tax, but income shouldn't be?
No, communism.
You want to destroy farmers and farms across the country by taxing them out of existence. Most farms do not make a fortune but survive through the generations by caring about the land and the buildings they manage.
Just like your repulsive plan to build all over the countryside and destroy our greenbelt with no local consultation as to what is needed. You have no care for your country or its heritage or its land. You are about as Tory as Stalin!
Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.
Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.
The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.
The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.
Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.
A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
I did not suggest confiscation of anything, I suggested and I quote "sort out the taxation issue".
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
You said 'Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible,'
So effectively advocating communism and driving out anybody who has inherited land, farms or businesses which their family have managed and preserved for generations.
No, not communism, taxation.
If someone inherits a farm then yes of course that should be liable to tax, just the same as any other income earned or inheritance should be. The profits of the farm ought to be more than enough to cover that tax, and if its not then the inheritor ought to sell up to someone who can run it better. That isn't communism, that's a free market, let people make their own choices and don't lock people out based on accidents of birth.
Though we charge increasing rates of tax on income on a sliding scale so that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Perhaps land could be done the same way too, the more you own, the more you pay?
Why should land be exempt from tax, but income shouldn't be?
No, communism.
You want to destroy farmers and farms across the country by taxing them out of existence. Most farms do not make a fortune but survive through the generations by caring about the land and the buildings they manage.
Just like your repulsive plan to build all over the countryside and destroy our greenbelt with no local consultation as to what is needed. You have no care for your country or its heritage or its land. You are about as Tory as Stalin!
If your party was genuinely worried about farmers it'd do something about supermarket buying pricing.
It's biased towards the landowning farmers, for obvious reasons of being biased towards the wealthy.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
I've been waiting a lung time for a gut pun.
Yes, they've all been tripe.
Well, it is difficult to be cheerful at the moment as we live intestine times.
"All frontline health and social care staff would pay zero basic rate income tax for the next three years under proposals unveiled by Reform UK as it sought to re-capture momentum after a poor showing in last week’s Chester byelection overshadowed recent strong polling results.
Waiting times would be cut to zero and the staffing crisis solved by plans, which would apply to both NHS and agency staff and come at a net cost of £9bn-£10bn per annum, claimed Richard Tice, the party’s leader."
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
I've been waiting a lung time for a gut pun.
Yes, they've all been tripe.
Well, it is difficult to be cheerful at the moment as we live intestine times.
How did you manage that comment without a colon ?
It would have been a mere appendix to the beauty of that pun.
"All frontline health and social care staff would pay zero basic rate income tax for the next three years under proposals unveiled by Reform UK as it sought to re-capture momentum after a poor showing in last week’s Chester byelection overshadowed recent strong polling results.
Waiting times would be cut to zero and the staffing crisis solved by plans, which would apply to both NHS and agency staff and come at a net cost of £9bn-£10bn per annum, claimed Richard Tice, the party’s leader."
How did he miss out the bit about cures for cancer and flying pigs? They were the key to the whole announcement.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
So you have to own the land to have a stake in it?
Would owning Putney Pies count as a “Steak in the Commonwealth” ?
Something of that kidney, anyway.
If they's a pun to be had, trust @ydoethur to de-liver it.
I've been waiting a lung time for a gut pun.
Yes, they've all been tripe.
Well, it is difficult to be cheerful at the moment as we live intestine times.
How did you manage that comment without a colon ?
It would have been a mere appendix to the beauty of that pun.
"The report will put forward 40 recommendations, including proposals for handing new economic powers to English mayors, local authorities and devolved governments."
My suspicion is he might attempt to carve England into bits. Labour have form on that.
It's this kind of thinking that has made England a highly centralised and poorly run country. We need far more local powers and local accountability so that we can try new approaches to things. I'd much rather live in an England that has been carved into bits if that means that each of the bits is better run.
It won't though. They will be corrupt and mostly unaccountable boondoggles for incompetents who can't make it on the national stage, just like in Scotland and Wales and most American states and city governments, without even the bonus of representing communities with strong cohesion or historic identity.
And that's if we're lucky.
The problem with local and Scottish/Welsh governments is that they lack accountability as they don't raise their own taxes. Not sure if you've ever lived in the States but State and Local government is far from how you describe it, and Americans are mostly very glad to live in a system which devolves power to as local a level as possible. The current system is crap. Nothing is working, and Westminster politicians are too remote to care, while local politicians have no power to change anything.
Yes I have lived in the US, and the government in one of the states I lived in, Arkansas, well merited the classic description of it as an Anglophone Guatemala. And most Arkansans were far from glad to live in such a state. California, where I subsequently lived, though far from perfect, was much better because it is large enough to support a fearless and independent media to keep the government accountable and scrutinise it. England would be like California, English regions like Arkansas. Or Scotland, even worse.
I agree the system here currently isn't working in many, but not all, ways, but while there are things I'd change, I think the fault isn't the system, it's the current policy mix. It has reproduced the post-war complacent centrist consensus, with the consequent gentle, then more rapid, decline.
For those suggesting that Russia needs 'security guarantees' (looking at you, Macron), note that today is the 28th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia was one of the parties guaranteeing Ukrainian security, and its territorial integrity in perpetuity.
I know you hate being reminded of this, but he - and you - lost.
Everybody in the Country lost
Not as badly as they would have if you'd got your way and democracy had been rendered irrelevant.
Democracy? Do me a favour.
Those Brexit waverers were lied too.
Pro-Brexit wavering voter: "What will leaving the EU mean to me a Brexit waverer?"
Brexiteer (maybe Farage or Johnson): "Don't worry it will just be great, and you will be wealthier and the nation will have loads of extra money to spend on fantastic stuff. Just vote Leave and you will see for yourself".
Former pro-Brexit wavering voter: "As a Brexit wavering voter, I have seen Brexit for myself and for what it is, and I don't like it, can I change my mind?"
Brexiteer: "No **** off. You voted Leave, own it"
Former pro-Brexit wavering voter: "But as a Brexit waverer who has changed their mind because I was lied to along with other Brexit wavering voters who have also changed their minds and we are now in the pro- EU majority I want my voice heard. What about my democratic right to change my mind?"
Brexiteer: "You've had democracy once, you can't have it again, now **** off!"
For those suggesting that Russia needs 'security guarantees' (looking at you, Macron), note that today is the 28th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia was one of the parties guaranteeing Ukrainian security, and its territorial integrity in perpetuity.
As their guarantees have proved useless, let Ukraine return to being a nuclear power with, what, 50 nukes?
Sounds like being a libertarian is all about someone defining the initial conditions before the state steps out of the process.
Being a libertarian is about as much as possible people being free to make their own choices.
The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.
The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.
Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.
A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
So at what point does the state step out of the process? With the Duke of Buccleuch or you owning your gaff? All razed to the ground and start again?
For those suggesting that Russia needs 'security guarantees' (looking at you, Macron), note that today is the 28th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia was one of the parties guaranteeing Ukrainian security, and its territorial integrity in perpetuity.
I think that Russia should get security guarantees.
Guarantees of being hammered on like one of TSE’s port affiliated entertainment industry friends, if they even sneeze for the next 100 years….
For those suggesting that Russia needs 'security guarantees' (looking at you, Macron), note that today is the 28th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia was one of the parties guaranteeing Ukrainian security, and its territorial integrity in perpetuity.
As their guarantees have proved useless, let Ukraine return to being a nuclear power with, what, 50 nukes?
Russia could hardly complain.
Russia is firing the missiles that Ukraine gave up under that agreement. At Ukraine. The ones with the concrete warhead simulators….
The Russians already believe this will happen - hence their desire to take control of the nuclear power stations and the cooling ponds full of old fuel rods.
I know you hate being reminded of this, but he - and you - lost.
Everybody in the Country lost
Not as badly as they would have if you'd got your way and democracy had been rendered irrelevant.
Democracy? Do me a favour.
Those Brexit waverers were lied too.
Of course. Every side lies in every vote, that's taken as read.
The point is it would have been worse to ignore the vote than to not have not had it in the first place.
And now that it's been implemented, the Eurofederalists are free to argue for Rejoining, though it would be helpful if they would admit that it would mean joining the euro and Schengen.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
No it isn't and only if you can afford a fortune on tax lawyers in the first place to try and find a few exemptions.
Taxation designed to drive family farms, businesses and estates out of business is Communism in all but name yes, a policy of which Stalin would be proud
"The Met Office has warned that severe cold weather is set to hit the UK this week, with overnight temperatures plummeting to -6C (21F) in some places.
Snow is likely in northern Scotland, although temperatures will be low enough to make it a possibility anywhere in the country.
Frost and ice are also expected.
People are being urged to use their heating, despite rising energy prices, and to look out for people who are especially vulnerable. ...
The World Health Organization considers an "adequately warm home" as reaching as 21C in living rooms and 18C in bedrooms - but studies have shown that the average temperature that people will be living in if they can't afford to heat their homes is only 10C."
21C is too warm and 10C is obviously way too cold. I'd say down to 16C works if people are wrapped up enough and reasonably active around the house. 18-19C if they are completely sedentary.
Totally agree. When I started dated my now wife, her mum's house was at 25 deg C. Far too warm. Unpleasantly warm. Now, for various reasons, she has the thermostat at 16 deg C and copes very well. I would wager a women decided that 21 deg C was adequately warm, not a man...
When we had children, the advice was 18c to avoid dehydration in the night. My wife insisted on 21c on the grounds it was freezing. As a South American, she seemed to find anything less than 30 horrible.
I found that not having to get up twice a night to get another glass of water was quite nice.
I think 21c is about right during the day. You don't want it at that temperature during the night. The body cools down and you're under a duvet.
Whoever wins England vs France instantly becomes a strong second favourite. Frankly I think either would have the beating of Brazil.
As for GB Utd, it might annoy some to say so but is there a single Welsh or Scotsman that would make it into the football side right now? Possibly a fit Kieran Tierney at left back. But not Bale or Ramsay anymore. The squad would have more depth I grant you.
Intriguing too that the Wales wonder decade has not just coincided with the Bale era but also Swansea and Cardiff being premier league regulars. Proud Scots take note and try again to get the Old Firm in the pyramid south of the border to make a true British Premier League.
Couldn't give much of a feck about which league Celtic and Rangers play in (aside from making parking easier in my bit a few days a year) but it'd be lovely to see the proud Brits that make up much of the Rangers' support exporting their culture to English cities on away days.
The recent decline of Scottish football ought to concern the Scottish Government. Scottish teams no longer dominate Europe; Scottish players are no longer significant in the EPL. What's gone wrong up there? School playing fields sold off? It cannot be money or size because Wales is still there.
It’s odd isn’t it. The premier league / first division always used to have a good number of Scots playing for the top sides.
MONEY
Scots don’t like it? Or people with effectively unlimited budgets will hire elsewhere?
Premier league and even some of teh lower leagues have teh money to buy the best abroad nowadays. Scots going to play in the top English leagues years ago meant a much stronger pool of players and hence national team. Also fact that Scottish teams also buy more foreign players does not help either. A sad reflection on the modern game, it is all just money. Used to love teh FA cup and Fair Cups , etc , the big teams had to go to all sorts of places and face tough games in fields etc. Now they are all pampered , seeded to make sure no tough games till the selected few meet in later rounds so more money can be made. News today that Rashford had to fly home as over 300K of watches were nicked from his house says it all.
Sterling
Not all English people look the same
Another Fcuking arsehole, it was an overpaid arsehole football player who cares which one it was you cretin , crawl back under your rock.
Racism followed by foul mouthed abuse - you must be a Scottish nationalist!
You fcukwitted cretin , there was nothing racist about it other than in your tiny bigoted turd of a brain. I got a name wrong. Now fcuk off back under your rock where you belong. @ThePoliticalParty
6/10 - you fired up the invective, but there is little lyrical quality in the insults.
Surprised to see Malc referencing French Connection UK, to be honest.
"The Met Office has warned that severe cold weather is set to hit the UK this week, with overnight temperatures plummeting to -6C (21F) in some places.
Snow is likely in northern Scotland, although temperatures will be low enough to make it a possibility anywhere in the country.
Frost and ice are also expected.
People are being urged to use their heating, despite rising energy prices, and to look out for people who are especially vulnerable. ...
The World Health Organization considers an "adequately warm home" as reaching as 21C in living rooms and 18C in bedrooms - but studies have shown that the average temperature that people will be living in if they can't afford to heat their homes is only 10C."
21C is too warm and 10C is obviously way too cold. I'd say down to 16C works if people are wrapped up enough and reasonably active around the house. 18-19C if they are completely sedentary.
Totally agree. When I started dated my now wife, her mum's house was at 25 deg C. Far too warm. Unpleasantly warm. Now, for various reasons, she has the thermostat at 16 deg C and copes very well. I would wager a women decided that 21 deg C was adequately warm, not a man...
When we had children, the advice was 18c to avoid dehydration in the night. My wife insisted on 21c on the grounds it was freezing. As a South American, she seemed to find anything less than 30 horrible.
I found that not having to get up twice a night to get another glass of water was quite nice.
I think 21c is about right during the day. You don't want it at that temperature during the night. The body cools down and you're under a duvet.
I reckon about 18 during the day and, in England, let it fall as far as it wants at night. I'll add an extra blanket or two if need be.
I would, however, like the heating to come back on at about quarter past 6. I find getting up in a cold house quite unpleasant. Unfortunately, the heating coming on wakes my daughter up, and I'd rather have an extra hour's sleep.
I know you hate being reminded of this, but he - and you - lost.
Everybody in the Country lost
Not as badly as they would have if you'd got your way and democracy had been rendered irrelevant.
Democracy? Do me a favour.
Those Brexit waverers were lied too.
Of course. Every side lies in every vote, that's taken as read.
The point is it would have been worse to ignore the vote than to not have not had it in the first place.
And now that it's been implemented, the Eurofederalists are free to argue for Rejoining, though it would be helpful if they would admit that it would mean joining the euro and Schengen.
You can't help yourself can you? "Project Fear" lives.
Today it is "Eurofederalists", mandatory "Euro(zone)", and mandatory "Schengen" scare stories. You don't know they would be conditions for rejoining. You have just made up more "Project Fear" BS. In 2016 it was "Turkish EU ascent", "the EU stifles trade" "the EU wastes £350m a week, we could spend it on the NHS". Project fear.
Rejoin is not an option. We had the best terms, those conditions are never going to be offered to us again. The ship has sailed, and we are left at the dockside wondering what to do with our untradeable product.
I know you hate being reminded of this, but he - and you - lost.
Everybody in the Country lost
Not as badly as they would have if you'd got your way and democracy had been rendered irrelevant.
and in a democracy people can change their minds. People voted for Trump and then threw him out, 4 years later. At what point can we vote again - when two-thirds of voters believe we made a mistake? We are heading there much quicker than I expected.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
No it isn't and only if you can afford a fortune on tax lawyers in the first place to try and find a few exemptions.
Taxation designed to drive family farms, businesses and estates out of business is Communism in all but name yes, a policy of which Stalin would be proud
So businesses are somehow superior if they are "family"? Why should shares in other businesses then be taxed differently?
Like inheritors are superior and pampered if they are the right sort of Tory-approved "family"? Clue: no nephews or nieces allowed.
"The Met Office has warned that severe cold weather is set to hit the UK this week, with overnight temperatures plummeting to -6C (21F) in some places.
Snow is likely in northern Scotland, although temperatures will be low enough to make it a possibility anywhere in the country.
Frost and ice are also expected.
People are being urged to use their heating, despite rising energy prices, and to look out for people who are especially vulnerable. ...
The World Health Organization considers an "adequately warm home" as reaching as 21C in living rooms and 18C in bedrooms - but studies have shown that the average temperature that people will be living in if they can't afford to heat their homes is only 10C."
21C is too warm and 10C is obviously way too cold. I'd say down to 16C works if people are wrapped up enough and reasonably active around the house. 18-19C if they are completely sedentary.
Totally agree. When I started dated my now wife, her mum's house was at 25 deg C. Far too warm. Unpleasantly warm. Now, for various reasons, she has the thermostat at 16 deg C and copes very well. I would wager a women decided that 21 deg C was adequately warm, not a man...
When we had children, the advice was 18c to avoid dehydration in the night. My wife insisted on 21c on the grounds it was freezing. As a South American, she seemed to find anything less than 30 horrible.
I found that not having to get up twice a night to get another glass of water was quite nice.
I think 21c is about right during the day. You don't want it at that temperature during the night. The body cools down and you're under a duvet.
I reckon about 18 during the day and, in England, let it fall as far as it wants at night. I'll add an extra blanket or two if need be.
I would, however, like the heating to come back on at about quarter past 6. I find getting up in a cold house quite unpleasant. Unfortunately, the heating coming on wakes my daughter up, and I'd rather have an extra hour's sleep.
21 comes from people wanting to feel warm in a T-shirt. Which is underwear, basically.
A sensible idea is zoned heating with some planning. Heat the bathrooms to more than 18 - since that is where people mostly change. Underfloor heating downstairs makes a room feel much warmer than it is.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
You don't need to be wealthy or afford lawyers. A half-decent financial adviser in a bank's call centre can get you out of it in most cases.*
Meanwhile, all the different processes you have to go through as a result when someone dies are almost as traumatic as the actual bereavement as I have spent the last month finding out.
Arguably the best argument for abolishing it entirely is it's so badly written and managed it's worse than useless.
I know you hate being reminded of this, but he - and you - lost.
Everybody in the Country lost
Not as badly as they would have if you'd got your way and democracy had been rendered irrelevant.
and in a democracy people can change their minds. People voted for Trump and then threw him out, 4 years later. At what point can we vote again - when two-thirds of voters believe we made a mistake? We are heading there much quicker than I expected.
In the interests of strict accuracy, the people didn't vote for Trump, they voted for Clinton. The Electoral College, however...
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
Many estates went bankrupt because the Great War killed off multiple heirs, sometimes several within a short number of years. The Government didn't waive IHT for such casualties.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
No it isn't and only if you can afford a fortune on tax lawyers in the first place to try and find a few exemptions.
Taxation designed to drive family farms, businesses and estates out of business is Communism in all but name yes, a policy of which Stalin would be proud
So businesses are somehow superior if they are "family"? Why should shares in other businesses then be taxed differently?
Like inheritors are superior and pampered if they are the right sort of Tory-approved "family"? Clue: no nephews or nieces allowed.
Business Property Relief is only available for unquoted shares, machinery etc. To ensure smaller family businesses can survive.
Not for shares in large FTSE listed companies. Though of course that doesn't matter to you and your usual far left, class war agenda
"The report will put forward 40 recommendations, including proposals for handing new economic powers to English mayors, local authorities and devolved governments."
My suspicion is he might attempt to carve England into bits. Labour have form on that.
It's this kind of thinking that has made England a highly centralised and poorly run country. We need far more local powers and local accountability so that we can try new approaches to things. I'd much rather live in an England that has been carved into bits if that means that each of the bits is better run.
Devolution to English regions should only be done by an English government.
Fine, if you really think that England needs 4 or 5 layers of government. An English government would be just as remote and out of touch as a UK government as England is 90% odd of the UK population-wise. As a Londoners I would really like to have a much more powerful government for our city-region. I grew up in the NE of England (as well as Scotland) and I know how remote and out of touch the UK government seems there. Our governance system has comprehensively failed. It's time for a break with the past.
Indeed. Devolution within all the regions, and a new federated structure between the nations.
That's in fact the only thing that will hold the UK together in the long-term, much to the chagrin of Putin.
People in the NW, SW, etc., of England won't buy regional administrations just to keep Scotland in Britain. Who in England gives a toss whether Scotland leaves or not? No other (geographical) fault line is likely to crack, except in NI which is a special case. Nobody cares about the long term. It might as well not exist.
‘Who in England gives a toss whether Scotland leaves or not?’
The governing Tory party, the soon to be governing Labour party and those eternal bridesmaids the LDs unfortunately.
I'd be sad for about 20 nanoseconds, then hope for an amicable break-up and long standing friendship in to the future.
I'd caution Scots to be careful what they wish for, but if that's the choice, so be it.
(In case that is blocked outside the US, here's the gist: A wife is offering to let her husband control the remote if she can control the thermostat. That deal would be a win/win, IMHO. Especially if he is smart enough to ask her, from time to time, what she would like to watch.)
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
You don't need to be wealthy or afford lawyers. A half-decent financial adviser in a bank's call centre can get you out of it in most cases.
Meanwhile, all the different processes you have to go through as a result when someone dies are almost as traumatic as the actual bereavement as I have spent the last month finding out.
Arguably the best argument for abolishing it entirely is it's so badly written and managed it's worse than useless.
My entire commiserations. Been there twice.
I had to do the IHT form for one estate and the resulting piece of paperwork was about half an inch thick for no very good reason, largely because of all the special exceptions and fiddles for the wealthy to tick off and give details.
"The report will put forward 40 recommendations, including proposals for handing new economic powers to English mayors, local authorities and devolved governments."
My suspicion is he might attempt to carve England into bits. Labour have form on that.
It's this kind of thinking that has made England a highly centralised and poorly run country. We need far more local powers and local accountability so that we can try new approaches to things. I'd much rather live in an England that has been carved into bits if that means that each of the bits is better run.
Devolution to English regions should only be done by an English government.
Fine, if you really think that England needs 4 or 5 layers of government. An English government would be just as remote and out of touch as a UK government as England is 90% odd of the UK population-wise. As a Londoners I would really like to have a much more powerful government for our city-region. I grew up in the NE of England (as well as Scotland) and I know how remote and out of touch the UK government seems there. Our governance system has comprehensively failed. It's time for a break with the past.
Indeed. Devolution within all the regions, and a new federated structure between the nations.
That's in fact the only thing that will hold the UK together in the long-term, much to the chagrin of Putin.
People in the NW, SW, etc., of England won't buy regional administrations just to keep Scotland in Britain. Who in England gives a toss whether Scotland leaves or not? No other (geographical) fault line is likely to crack, except in NI which is a special case. Nobody cares about the long term. It might as well not exist.
There's no reason why it would work anyway. The more England gets divided up into 'Scotland-sized' regions, the more of them there are to 'vote Scotland down'. It's like Westminster again.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
No it isn't and only if you can afford a fortune on tax lawyers in the first place to try and find a few exemptions.
Taxation designed to drive family farms, businesses and estates out of business is Communism in all but name yes, a policy of which Stalin would be proud
So businesses are somehow superior if they are "family"? Why should shares in other businesses then be taxed differently?
Like inheritors are superior and pampered if they are the right sort of Tory-approved "family"? Clue: no nephews or nieces allowed.
Business Property Relief is only available for unquoted shares, machinery etc. To ensure smaller family businesses can survive.
Not for shares in large FTSE listed companies. Though of course that doesn't matter to you and your usual far left, class war agenda
Excuses, excuses. Massive public subsidy to the Tory donor demographic.
If you think I am far left then you'd better go and have a lie down and play with a train set. The way the Tories are going, we might yet see some real lefties in power.
Then why waste so much energy moaning about leaving?
Because you sold a false premise. A lie which has made me poorer, socially and financially. I can vent my anger towards you and demand you compensate me as best you can. Maybe by offering me EEA, maybe EFTA or maybe something else that eases the pain you and your like caused me.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
No it isn't and only if you can afford a fortune on tax lawyers in the first place to try and find a few exemptions.
Taxation designed to drive family farms, businesses and estates out of business is Communism in all but name yes, a policy of which Stalin would be proud
I was thinking largely about trusts, young HY. That is one tax dodge I would like to see an end of. We could tax the beneficiaries....
Then why waste so much energy moaning about leaving?
Because you sold a false premise. A lie which has made me poorer, socially and financially. I can vent my anger towards you and demand you compensate me as best you can. Maybe by offering me EEA, maybe EFTA or maybe something else that eases the pain you and your like caused me.
I didn't sell anything. I only decided at the last second to vote Leave. I only became evangelical on the issue when democracy deniers spent years trying to pretend that the referendum hadn't happened.
In every such missile campaign since the V1, where interception was possible*, the interception rate climbed until the missiles became ineffective.
*with the V2 and the Iran/Iraq War of The Cities, the combatants had no means** of intercepting.
**Towards the end of the V2 campaign there was a plan to link Heavy AA to centimetre radar, and fire a barrage at the incoming V2s at very high altitude.
The new second chamber quickly would become redundant as it would simply form up along party political lines.
In 2024, for example, could anyone see the country voting for a Cons upper house.
A sensible reform the Tories could and should have done is to fix the system for how its meant to work at the moment, while finishing the act of removing hereditary peers which would always leave it open for further reform until done:
1: Abolish remaining hereditary peers. 2: Rename the Lords to something else. 3: Make it clear that the purpose of the chamber is a revising chamber to give advice to the Commons on how to improve laws, but not to frustrate the Commons. 4: Make it clear that the Commons has primacy and can override the other chamber where the Commons chooses not to take its advice.
The moment you make the Lords [whatever you call it] elected, it has its own mandate.
There are only 91 hereditary Peers left out of 786 Lords in total. Most of them rooted in the land and heritage of the nation.
If Labour wishes to further wreck the constitution and impose a fully elected upper house leading to clashes with the Commons that is up to Labour, it is the Tories role to defend the status quo and tradition from unnecessary reform
I honestly didn't realise there were still so many hereditary peers. Over 10%!
Presumably the implication is that you have to have a family crest to be able to be rooted in the land and heritage of the nation... surely that applies equally to plenty of life peers too?
Not really, they may be experts in their field (or party donors) but few of them have the landed estates the hereditary Peers do.
Of course originally the Lords was supposed to be the upper house for the landed peerage and Bishops and the Commons the elected House for commoners
Its the 21st century, why the hell does anyone still have a landed estate from centuries ago?
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible, and free up the land so that everyone has the same opportunities to work for, and acquire through their own efforts, any land.
As they manage its maintenance and preservation as they have done for centuries.
Unlike your policy of theft of I assume also inherited farms and businesses too, about as unTory a policy as there could possibly be.
Fortunately the Tory Party will not pursue such a policy and if you never vote Tory again and pollute it with such socialist ideas all to the good!
Theft?
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Yes, theft. You advocated confiscation of the landed estates of this country and also by extension all family farms and family businesses.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
But they tell me that inheritance tax is easy enough to avoid, if you are wealthy enough and can afford the right sort of tax lawyers. And in any case, taxation is not Communism, is it, young HY?
No it isn't and only if you can afford a fortune on tax lawyers in the first place to try and find a few exemptions.
Taxation designed to drive family farms, businesses and estates out of business is Communism in all but name yes, a policy of which Stalin would be proud
So businesses are somehow superior if they are "family"? Why should shares in other businesses then be taxed differently?
Like inheritors are superior and pampered if they are the right sort of Tory-approved "family"? Clue: no nephews or nieces allowed.
Business Property Relief is only available for unquoted shares, machinery etc. To ensure smaller family businesses can survive.
Not for shares in large FTSE listed companies. Though of course that doesn't matter to you and your usual far left, class war agenda
Excuses, excuses. Massive public subsidy to the Tory donor demographic.
If you think I am far left then you'd better go and have a lie down and play with a train set. The way the Tories are going, we might yet see some real lefties in power.
I would suggest most voters would be keen on preserving smaller, traditional family businesses not seeing yet another shift to global multinationals with few local links
"The Met Office has warned that severe cold weather is set to hit the UK this week, with overnight temperatures plummeting to -6C (21F) in some places.
Snow is likely in northern Scotland, although temperatures will be low enough to make it a possibility anywhere in the country.
Frost and ice are also expected.
People are being urged to use their heating, despite rising energy prices, and to look out for people who are especially vulnerable. ...
The World Health Organization considers an "adequately warm home" as reaching as 21C in living rooms and 18C in bedrooms - but studies have shown that the average temperature that people will be living in if they can't afford to heat their homes is only 10C."
21C is too warm and 10C is obviously way too cold. I'd say down to 16C works if people are wrapped up enough and reasonably active around the house. 18-19C if they are completely sedentary.
Totally agree. When I started dated my now wife, her mum's house was at 25 deg C. Far too warm. Unpleasantly warm. Now, for various reasons, she has the thermostat at 16 deg C and copes very well. I would wager a women decided that 21 deg C was adequately warm, not a man...
When we had children, the advice was 18c to avoid dehydration in the night. My wife insisted on 21c on the grounds it was freezing. As a South American, she seemed to find anything less than 30 horrible.
I found that not having to get up twice a night to get another glass of water was quite nice.
Shudders. I remember working in an office in the 2005 heatwave. These were the days when suits and ties were still required for men. The girls in the office swanned around in light summer dresses and kept turning off the aircon. We said they could put on a cardigan, to which their reply was: “Why shouldn’t we wear summer clothes in summer?”
Comments
Though 21 is what I'd go for, more out of habit than anything else, if money/gas were not an issue I would in a forced-choice much prefer 25 over 18.
You are preposterous, taxation is unpleasant but it isn't theft.
If someone earns £100k then the state claims marginally 60% of anything they're earning, but you think unearned estates should be passed along without being taxed? Why?
We should tax income less, and land more. If someone wants to own a part of this country they can and should have a responsibility to pay for a part of this countries upkeep.
Effectively Communism of the type Stalin would have been proud.
They already pay inheritance tax on them of course, and 100 years ago that nearly destroyed some of the great Estates when introduced by Lloyd George
The governing Tory party, the soon to be governing Labour party and those eternal bridesmaids the LDs unfortunately.
If someone wants to own land and pay any taxes due on it, that's their prerogative, if they can afford it. If they can't, they can sell it to someone else.
If the "Lords" still have great estates from centuries ago, then inheritance tax presumably is nowhere near high enough, or too easy to evade - and land tax is still non-existent.
That's one way to tackle our deficit and address our housing issues then, let alone who gets into Parliament, address that problem. Sort out the taxation issue so that inheriting vast estates you haven't worked for is impossible,'
So effectively advocating communism and driving out anybody who has inherited land, farms or businesses which their family have managed and preserved for generations.
(For those who don’t know, Putney Pies is a shop just across the road from the church in Putney where the Putney debates were held. Until the construction of the London super sewer used the foreshore of the river in front, a cellar under Putney pies led to an excellent riverside drinking area - the cellar itself was/is a late night bar)
In some countries this has resulted in most agricultural land being held by mega agri businesses.
If someone inherits a farm then yes of course that should be liable to tax, just the same as any other income earned or inheritance should be. The profits of the farm ought to be more than enough to cover that tax, and if its not then the inheritor ought to sell up to someone who can run it better. That isn't communism, that's a free market, let people make their own choices and don't lock people out based on accidents of birth.
Though we charge increasing rates of tax on income on a sliding scale so that the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Perhaps land could be done the same way too, the more you own, the more you pay?
Why should land be exempt from tax, but income shouldn't be?
You want to destroy farmers and farms across the country by taxing them out of existence. Most farms do not make a fortune but survive through the generations by caring about the land and the buildings they manage.
Just like your repulsive plan to build all over the countryside and destroy our greenbelt with no local consultation as to what is needed. You have no care for your country or its heritage or its land. You are about as Tory as Stalin!
The state should exist, otherwise we're talking absolute anarchy not libertarian. And of course any state that exists must be paid for.
The idea that land ownership should be taxed is an ancient libertarian dating back to the 18th centuries within the framework of Geolibertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology that integrates libertarianism with Georgism. It favors a taxation system based (as in Georgism) on income derived from land and natural resources instead of on labor, coupled with a minimalist model of government, as in libertarianism.
Geolibertarians recognize the right to private ownership of land, but only if fair recompense is paid to the community for the loss of access to that land. Some geolibertarians broaden out the tax base to include resource depletion, environmental damage, and other ancillaries to land use.
A succinct summary of this philosophy can be found in Thomas Paine's 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds".
It's biased towards the landowning farmers, for obvious reasons of being biased towards the wealthy.
"All frontline health and social care staff would pay zero basic rate income tax for the next three years under proposals unveiled by Reform UK as it sought to re-capture momentum after a poor showing in last week’s Chester byelection overshadowed recent strong polling results.
Waiting times would be cut to zero and the staffing crisis solved by plans, which would apply to both NHS and agency staff and come at a net cost of £9bn-£10bn per annum, claimed Richard Tice, the party’s leader."
I agree the system here currently isn't working in many, but not all, ways, but while there are things I'd change, I think the fault isn't the system, it's the current policy mix. It has reproduced the post-war complacent centrist consensus, with the consequent gentle, then more rapid, decline.
Those Brexit waverers were lied too.
Pro-Brexit wavering voter: "What will leaving the EU mean to me a Brexit waverer?"
Brexiteer (maybe Farage or Johnson): "Don't worry it will just be great, and you will be wealthier and the nation will have loads of extra money to spend on fantastic stuff. Just vote Leave and you will see for yourself".
Former pro-Brexit wavering voter: "As a Brexit wavering voter, I have seen Brexit for myself and for what it is, and I don't like it, can I change my mind?"
Brexiteer: "No **** off. You voted Leave, own it"
Former pro-Brexit wavering voter: "But as a Brexit waverer who has changed their mind because I was lied to along with other Brexit wavering voters who have also changed their minds and we are now in the pro- EU majority I want my voice heard. What about my democratic right to change my mind?"
Brexiteer: "You've had democracy once, you can't have it again, now **** off!"
Russia could hardly complain.
Guarantees of being hammered on like one of TSE’s port affiliated entertainment industry friends, if they even sneeze for the next 100 years….
The Russians already believe this will happen - hence their desire to take control of the nuclear power stations and the cooling ponds full of old fuel rods.
The point is it would have been worse to ignore the vote than to not have not had it in the first place.
And now that it's been implemented, the Eurofederalists are free to argue for Rejoining, though it would be helpful if they would admit that it would mean joining the euro and Schengen.
The odds are almost static.
Betting markets predicted the outcomes of the group stages very accurately.
Perhaps politics punters have something to learn from football betting?
Taxation designed to drive family farms, businesses and estates out of business is Communism in all but name yes, a policy of which Stalin would be proud
I would, however, like the heating to come back on at about quarter past 6. I find getting up in a cold house quite unpleasant. Unfortunately, the heating coming on wakes my daughter up, and I'd rather have an extra hour's sleep.
Today it is "Eurofederalists", mandatory "Euro(zone)", and mandatory "Schengen" scare stories. You don't know they would be conditions for rejoining. You have just made up more "Project Fear" BS. In 2016 it was "Turkish EU ascent", "the EU stifles trade" "the EU wastes £350m a week, we could spend it on the NHS". Project fear.
Rejoin is not an option. We had the best terms, those conditions are never going to be offered to us again. The ship has sailed, and we are left at the dockside wondering what to do with our untradeable product.
Like inheritors are superior and pampered if they are the right sort of Tory-approved "family"? Clue: no nephews or nieces allowed.
And we need a full government review before it's too late
Matt Goodwin"
https://mattgoodwin.substack.com/p/critical-race-theory-is-infecting
A sensible idea is zoned heating with some planning. Heat the bathrooms to more than 18 - since that is where people mostly change. Underfloor heating downstairs makes a room feel much warmer than it is.
Meanwhile, all the different processes you have to go through as a result when someone dies are almost as traumatic as the actual bereavement as I have spent the last month finding out.
Arguably the best argument for abolishing it entirely is it's so badly written and managed it's worse than useless.
*I realise these are comparatively rare birds.
Not for shares in large FTSE listed companies. Though of course that doesn't matter to you and your usual far left, class war agenda
I'd caution Scots to be careful what they wish for, but if that's the choice, so be it.
Bit like Brexit.
https://condenaststore.com/featured/a-husband-and-his-frustrated-wife-sit-barbara-smaller.html
(In case that is blocked outside the US, here's the gist: A wife is offering to let her husband control the remote if she can control the thermostat. That deal would be a win/win, IMHO. Especially if he is smart enough to ask her, from time to time, what she would like to watch.)
I had to do the IHT form for one estate and the resulting piece of paperwork was about half an inch thick for no very good reason, largely because of all the special exceptions and fiddles for the wealthy to tick off and give details.
Well deserved.
More then 60 rockets of numerous types (X-101/X-555, Kalibr, X-59) were destroyed today by the Ukrainian air defense forces.
The total amount that were launched are not known yet.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1599791325460582400
If you think I am far left then you'd better go and have a lie down and play with a train set. The way the Tories are going, we might yet see some real lefties in power.
Though I should point out (which will doom them) that I tipped them at 100/1 this morning.
set up a trust to avoid IHT
*with the V2 and the Iran/Iraq War of The Cities, the combatants had no means** of intercepting.
**Towards the end of the V2 campaign there was a plan to link Heavy AA to centimetre radar, and fire a barrage at the incoming V2s at very high altitude.
I think the irony was either lost or ignored!