On the topic of tax, and especially new taxpayers, here is what HMRC is helpfully planning: to close its SA helpline for weeks on end at short notice (well, it did the last time) to improve service.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
The point, in its most simple form, is that you can only tax those things it is possible to tax.
It is possible to tax income from employment.
I would argue that our experience with Inheritance Tax shows that it is nearly impossible to tax income from inheritance. There are too many ways to obscure ownership of family assets to be able to tax the transfer of those assets on death.
I'm not arguing in favour of taxing income, but if you want to increase tax on something other than income in order to reduce taxes on income then you have to find a tax that will work, and a tax on inheritance isn't it.
Eh? How can it be impossible to tax inheritance when it already provides 0.7% of tax receipts? Difficult politically or creates loop holes sure, but impossible is just provably false.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
And so he should.
Why should Rishi Sunak pitch fruitlessly for left-wing votes just so they dislike him a little bit less but still don't vote for him?
It makes sense to pitch in a particular direction, especially if the opposite direction is unlikely to bear fruit. The question will be whether the alternative will prove fertile ground either if even those people a) don't believe you will/can do it b) doesn't think it overcomes the 'time for a change' factors.
I assumed something like Truss 2.0 'Done right this time' was the plan all along, once the ship had been settled, it's just that the ship never got settled much at all but they still need to move on to the positive arguments for voting Tory, even if the national situation is, I suspect, not really ready to receive that message yet because things have gone slower than hoped.
“If somebody is so out of step with where the Republican electorate is, where the MAGA movement is, how can they even be in the conversation?” Epshteyn said. “We need a MAGA speaker. That’s what it comes down to. Because if you look at the numbers, if you look at the energy, if you look at the heat, this is the Trump party, this is the MAGA party. It is no longer the old-school khaki establishment Republican Party.”..
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
The point, in its most simple form, is that you can only tax those things it is possible to tax.
It is possible to tax income from employment.
I would argue that our experience with Inheritance Tax shows that it is nearly impossible to tax income from inheritance. There are too many ways to obscure ownership of family assets to be able to tax the transfer of those assets on death.
I'm not arguing in favour of taxing income, but if you want to increase tax on something other than income in order to reduce taxes on income then you have to find a tax that will work, and a tax on inheritance isn't it.
Eh? How can it be impossible to tax inheritance when it already provides 0.7% of tax receipts? Difficult politically or creates loop holes sure, but impossible is just provably false.
He did say 'income'. Which implies, not a capital transfer. But 'income' does have a technical meaning in the context of probate, i.e. income to the estate such as bank interest which is sometimes taxed as part ofd the beneficiary's income tax, so I'm not sure what is meant.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Would it? Kwasi Kwarteng cut stamp duty a year ago without lasting benefit to Liz Truss's or the Conservatives' popularity. The IHT threshold could be raised, or standardised at £1 million for all families not just married ones, but abolition would be greeted by a million Labour posterstweets Xs saying how much squillionaires Rishi and Jeremy Hunt would benefit.
The problem with only millionaires paying IHT is that it encourages the idea that only millionaires should pay any tax.
Most people only deal with income tax and VAT, both of which are paid by everyone. (OK, and booze and fuel duty.) The point about IHT is most families have a million pound threshold anyway by shuffling between spouses so it would be easy to extend this, if the Chancellor wants a cheap headline-grabber.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
Don’t be silly. We’ll wait for a solitary survey showing a reduction in the Labour lead of two points then spend innumerable pixels explaining how Israel has given Sundance The Comeback Kid the big mo.
Lol ! I think I’ve been guilty of that . What I take from the last week is that people aren’t so duped by politicians photo ops .
Don’t be silly. We’ll wait for a solitary survey showing a reduction in the Labour lead of two points then spend innumerable pixels explaining how Israel has given Sundance The Comeback Kid the big mo.
Lol ! I think I’ve been guilty of that . What I take from the last week is that people aren’t so duped by politicians photo ops .
Abolish IHT and tax the all legacy recipients at around 5%
Why should unearned windfalls be taxed at 5% when some marginal employment taxes are well over 50%?
I chose 5% to roughly equal the current receipts (£7bn) from IHT in steady-state
So just tax it at regular income tax rates, including NI.
How much would that raise then?
And you could use that to lower those income tax rates, including NI.
I don't want to see an overall tax rise, but I do want to see those working for a living taxed less.
"How much would that raise then?" Fingertip guess: UK wealth ~ £12 trillion, average life expectancy ~ 85 years, all wealth held by UK taxpayers -> ~ £140 billion in legacies each year -> taxed at 20% -> ~£28 billion receipts i.e. 4 times current revenue from IHT. Total tax receipts currently ~ £1 trillion, so would raise around 3% of tax revenue each year.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
The point, in its most simple form, is that you can only tax those things it is possible to tax.
It is possible to tax income from employment.
I would argue that our experience with Inheritance Tax shows that it is nearly impossible to tax income from inheritance. There are too many ways to obscure ownership of family assets to be able to tax the transfer of those assets on death.
I'm not arguing in favour of taxing income, but if you want to increase tax on something other than income in order to reduce taxes on income then you have to find a tax that will work, and a tax on inheritance isn't it.
Eh? How can it be impossible to tax inheritance when it already provides 0.7% of tax receipts? Difficult politically or creates loop holes sure, but impossible is just provably false.
I think it's difficult enough that it's extremely unlikely you would be able to increase taxation from inheritance though to reduce taxation from employment.
I simplified this difference to a possible/impossible dichotomy to make a point, which is that raising taxes in theory is easier than doing so in practice.
Inheritance tax is fundamentally a tax on a transfer of assets, and the reason it raises a lot less then it should in theory raise (given the value of estates and the headline rates and thresholds) is that there are lots of ways to avoid assets being transferred in the simple ladybird book of ownership way.
That's why all this talk of applying income tax rates and allowances to it is so much garbage, and effectively impossible in any practical sense.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
I'd love to see him run things calmly for this final year, do no harm, just keep the seat warm for SKS, but I guess that's not how the world works. GEs are what politics is all about once they get close. So I do cut him some slack. He has to give it everything, leave nothing on the pitch between now and next October. He has to somehow turn it around and avoid a real thrashing. Perhaps he can. 200 seats is the magic number. This is what Sunak will be aiming for and who's to say he can't do it?
I suspect CON supporters will typically privately be hoping for 250 min and would take that now. I would.
That's the 'stretch' target, I'd say. Bolly all round at CPHQ if that happens. It'd feel like a win not a loss. Kind of like 2017 did to Labour supporters (apart from the Blairite Jezza haters).
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
Those who go on about how ‘the rich’ should pay more taxes, while employing come of the country’s best accountants and lawyers to aggressively avoid tax themselves, those who turn up to climate change protests in private planes, those who want the average person to make sacrifices they have no intention of making themselves…
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
I see. So the basic message behind this rather offensive term is “those in the performing arts should STFU” is it? Rather an arrogant and sinister view if I may say so. Especially given the importance of the performing arts to our global influence and tourist economy.
On the topic of tax, and especially new taxpayers, here is what HMRC is helpfully planning: to close its SA helpline for weeks on end at short notice (well, it did the last time) to improve service.
To be fair getting told the line is closed after 1 minute is a big improvement on waiting 4 hours being unaware there was never any chance of anyone answering.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
2000 was the time that I was in the West Bank. Even then the Apartheid occupation had made a viable West Bank Palestinian state impossible, being cut into tiny Bantustans by settlements, settler only roads and military roadblocks. The contrast with the liberality and freedom of Tel Aviv was striking.
The only peace Israel envisages for the West Bank is permanent armed occupation.
Must have been an interesting time. I do remember reading about the divisions within the West Bank - not viable in that form as you say. But surely that position could have evolved - and the Israeli proposal was the evolution of land allocations, elevated roads / railways to connect Gaza etc.
Not perfect, but a start. Better than what we got instead.
Yes, I was staying with a Palestinian Christian organisation, so very far from Hamas in philosophy. There was joint management of patients with an Israeli hospital, and in the interval between the intifadas. It was quite safe to walk around then on days off doing tourist stuff.
The Fatah wing of the PLO never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but the Israelis were not really interested in a Palestinian state being viable. "From River to Sea" is not just a Palestinian slogan, but also an Israeli ambition.
'The National Infrastructure Commission advised this week, after an exhaustive investigation of the technology, that hydrogen was not suitable for heating homes. The report was unambiguous: “The Commission’s analysis demonstrates that there is no public policy case for hydrogen to be used to heat individual buildings. It should be ruled out as an option to enable an exclusive focus on switching to electrified heat.”
However, the government indicated to the Guardian that it would continue to push hydrogen for home heating, and the body that represents most of the heating industry also vowed to continue to pursue it.'
Given how long it took us to find a reliable worker to mend a persistent gas leak in our house discovered after we bought it, no thanks, no hydrogen for me!
Handing hydrogen has well defined safety practises and methods. I can’t see how you could put hydrogen through home gas pipes and meet through standards.
To start with Hydrogen embrittles materials by permeating *through* apparently solid material. It can also leak through joints that are 100% gas and water tight.
Hydrogen is completely safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
A person involved in one of the most cut throat, nepotistic and successful of British industries whose opinions the speaker does not approve of.
People will look at the state of services and infrastructure, look at the timing pre election of tax cuts, and conclude it’s a cynical attempt to buy votes
Who is arguing for tax cuts? I can see a lot of posts arguing for sensible simplification of taxes (eg at £100k) but not overall tax cuts. Indeed I suggested making a new 45p bracket at £100k but ending the absurd false incentive whereby the PA is attacked at £100,001.
I'm arguing for tax cuts and the state doing less.
Where it does do it I'd want the state to be investing its money in different places, and in the future.
No, but the real surprise given I've had dealings with their senior staff recently and they're clearly far more drunk than they pretended to the Met is that they ever sober up for long enough to keep tabs on people.
From the Huffington Post article - I wonder who this is having fun using Sunak as a chew toy:
“Sunak inherited a toxic and fractured party in which he was not the first preference for the job. He spent a large amount of the last 12 months not saying much and then suddenly woke up before conference and decided to become presidential.
“His conference speech was full of ‘I’ and ‘me’ not “‘we’ or ‘the party’. His wife did a First Lady impression by giving a speech and telling us how nice her hubby is. None of us particularly want nice, we would settle for competent -which he isn’t.”
It says senior Tory, not MP. Wonder if it's Lord Frost. Or Boris.
Gove?
Just the right balance of civility, sympathy and rudeness.
I don't think it's anyone in the Cabinet - if I had to pick one it sounds like it would be Kemi Badenoch.
I'm still going with Frost I think, though if you read it in the style of Ann Widdecombe it also works.
Didn't Widdecombe defect to UKIP (or whatever it was renamed by then) and take part in that back-turning stunt in front of the children's choir in the European Parliament? Rather shameful behaviour from her I thought.
“If somebody is so out of step with where the Republican electorate is, where the MAGA movement is, how can they even be in the conversation?” Epshteyn said. “We need a MAGA speaker. That’s what it comes down to. Because if you look at the numbers, if you look at the energy, if you look at the heat, this is the Trump party, this is the MAGA party. It is no longer the old-school khaki establishment Republican Party.”..
A demagogue hiding in plain sight.
The US will rue the day they re-elect Trump next November.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
And so he should.
Why should Rishi Sunak pitch fruitlessly for left-wing votes just so they dislike him a little bit less but still don't vote for him?
It makes sense to pitch in a particular direction, especially if the opposite direction is unlikely to bear fruit. The question will be whether the alternative will prove fertile ground either if even those people a) don't believe you will/can do it b) doesn't think it overcomes the 'time for a change' factors.
I assumed something like Truss 2.0 'Done right this time' was the plan all along, once the ship had been settled, it's just that the ship never got settled much at all but they still need to move on to the positive arguments for voting Tory, even if the national situation is, I suspect, not really ready to receive that message yet because things have gone slower than hoped.
The Labour vote was unchanged in both by-elections, whereas the Tory vote was down 65-70%. Plainly it makes sense to focus on winning back those who sat on their hands.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Would it? Kwasi Kwarteng cut stamp duty a year ago without lasting benefit to Liz Truss's or the Conservatives' popularity. The IHT threshold could be raised, or standardised at £1 million for all families not just married ones, but abolition would be greeted by a million Labour posterstweets Xs saying how much squillionaires Rishi and Jeremy Hunt would benefit.
KK's budget crashed and burned as a package due to its casual hubris. I don't think it follows that the SD part was unpopular. As for IHT it's a hated tax. I think there's votes in scrapping it. If I were Sunak I'd do it. Biggest bang for his buck.
On the 'what's right rather than popular' front my view is also that IHT should be scrapped but with the proviso that legacies are taxed instead as income in the hands of the recipient. McDonnell was looking at this iirc. There are countries who do it this way.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
I don't think non-Jews really grasp that Jewish people's fundamental social trust has been permanently undermined. We now know that our companies' DEI officers would gleefully celebrate our deaths if we were killed by the right people.
People will look at the state of services and infrastructure, look at the timing pre election of tax cuts, and conclude it’s a cynical attempt to buy votes
Who is arguing for tax cuts? I can see a lot of posts arguing for sensible simplification of taxes (eg at £100k) but not overall tax cuts. Indeed I suggested making a new 45p bracket at £100k but ending the absurd false incentive whereby the PA is attacked at £100,001.
I'm arguing for tax cuts and the state doing less.
Where it does do it I'd want the state to be investing its money in different places, and in the future.
Thats a fair perspective. The challenge for any party at the moment is that we spend so much money to get so few results. The NHS is both receiving record funding and is starved of cash at the front line. So the solution is not to Spend More - we need to understand how so much of our money is being diverted away from stuff we need.
What sort of demonstrations are we expecting today? Large numbers were out on the streets of London last week waving Palestinian flags. There were some unsavoury incidents but we were told that this was a minority. Unfair to taint a huge number of people with the views of a small minority. I would feel more comfortable with this view if there were not so many chants of 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea.' It's a Hamas slogan and might be interpreted as support for genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population.
People are of course innocent until proven guilty. They weren't waving Hamas flags or supporting the murder of Jews. If they were they might find themselves in trouble with the law. Proscribing Hamas doesn't mean they don't have supporters in the UK but that those people simply need to be quiet about it. I didn't see people wanting to DISTANCE themselves from Hamas, DISTANCE themselves from Iran, acknowledging that they are part of the reason that the plight of the Palestinians is what it is. DISTANCING themselves from the sadistic massacre of 1300 innocent people.
I also think it is important that one considers the views of those you protest alongside. For instance, I might get annoyed at the way our cultural institutions decide to become obsessed with decolonisation and show little interest in anything else. I might protest but if it was clear to me that the protest was basically a white nationalist movement I'd be very uncomfortable. In fact I would run a mile. It's good to know what the values of your fellow protesters really are other than 'solidarity with the Palestinians.'
I was in the centre of Cardiff last week and heard some people singing. Curious I walked over and there were ten or fifteen people singing Hallelujah in Welsh and waving Palestinian flags. All very sombre. There was a big picture with 3 maps. One was Palestine 1948, one for 1967 and one for 2023 with the blue i.e Palestinian areas getting smaller and smaller. A lady tried to pass me a leaflet, something like 'Jewish People Against Apartheid'. I turned it down but I admit that in terms of pulling on the heartstrings it was mightily effective. No doubt we will see bigger marches and protests today and going forward. What will they look like?
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
I'd love to see him run things calmly for this final year, do no harm, just keep the seat warm for SKS, but I guess that's not how the world works. GEs are what politics is all about once they get close. So I do cut him some slack. He has to give it everything, leave nothing on the pitch between now and next October. He has to somehow turn it around and avoid a real thrashing. Perhaps he can. 200 seats is the magic number. This is what Sunak will be aiming for and who's to say he can't do it?
I suspect CON supporters will typically privately be hoping for 250 min and would take that now. I would.
In terms of whether Starmer is a one term or two term PM who the Tories pick as next leader is far more significant than their seat count after the election. In 97 the decision by Hezza nor to stand and the choice of Hague over Clarke guaranteed Blair a second term. Tories were more interested in their factional divisions then being electable. They repeated the trick in 2001 with IDS leaving Howard to sort of sort things out and minimise the damage in 2005.
The sure sign of the Tories wishing to seriously compete in 2028/9 would be electing Mordaunt despite her supposed wokeness. Badenoch or Braverman would be Hague/IDS redux.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
Well, it's for the two parties to the conflict to negotiate and come to whatever settlement they can both accept. Not sure why we should try to have that negotiation for them.
What we can do is to try to help prepare the environment for such a negotiation, by encouraging confidence-building measures. And I think that is only possible if we properly understand the motivations of both sides of the conflict. I've spent the last two weeks feeling entirely hopeless about the conflict, because as far as I could tell it was mainly a very negative sum dispute over land. It's very hard to reach any agreement when that agreement would involve both sides having to crystallise large losses of land.
However, I now start to think that if you view the conflict slightly differently, it is possible to see a basis for an agreement. Israelis, I believe, are primarily concerned with a desire for security. Whereas Palestinians, I believe, are primarily motivated by a desire for justice. This is why the Oslo Peace Process foundered over the right of return. It was asking the Palestinians to give up on a large part of what they would see as a just peace. The Israeli emphasis on security is why the calls for an immediate ceasefire are naive and wrongheaded. In the absence of any confidence-building measure to restore Israel's security, then they must attempt to improve their security - even if just in the short-term - by damaging the ability of Hamas to attack them. So things still look a bit bleak in the short term, but in the long-term these competing desires for security and justice should be easier to reconcile than simply competing claims for the same land would be.
I think one weakness in your analysis here is that there are more than two parties involved, and that other parties have an interest in maintaining the conflict as a running sore for their own reasons. The most prominent is perhaps the Iranian Government.
That comes down to a point that I made previously, that this is as much a consequence of an unstable Middle East as it is a cause of it. It cannot imo be fixed without addressing wider questions.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
And so he should.
Why should Rishi Sunak pitch fruitlessly for left-wing votes just so they dislike him a little bit less but still don't vote for him?
It makes sense to pitch in a particular direction, especially if the opposite direction is unlikely to bear fruit. The question will be whether the alternative will prove fertile ground either if even those people a) don't believe you will/can do it b) doesn't think it overcomes the 'time for a change' factors.
I assumed something like Truss 2.0 'Done right this time' was the plan all along, once the ship had been settled, it's just that the ship never got settled much at all but they still need to move on to the positive arguments for voting Tory, even if the national situation is, I suspect, not really ready to receive that message yet because things have gone slower than hoped.
The Labour vote was unchanged in both by-elections, whereas the Tory vote was down 65-70%. Plainly it makes sense to focus on winning back those who sat on their hands.
Don't byelections almost always poll far lower than GEs?
Also, is there not considerable churn, with some Lab voters not turning out, and Con voters switching to give that net overall effect?
Both this and a voter strike by Tory voters in 1997 played their part.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Would it? Kwasi Kwarteng cut stamp duty a year ago without lasting benefit to Liz Truss's or the Conservatives' popularity. The IHT threshold could be raised, or standardised at £1 million for all families not just married ones, but abolition would be greeted by a million Labour posterstweets Xs saying how much squillionaires Rishi and Jeremy Hunt would benefit.
KK's budget crashed and burned as a package due to its casual hubris. I don't think it follows that the SD part was unpopular. As for IHT it's a hated tax. I think there's votes in scrapping it. If I were Sunak I'd do it. Biggest bang for his buck.
On the 'what's right rather than popular' front my view is also that IHT should be scrapped but with the proviso that legacies are taxed instead as income in the hands of the recipient. McDonnell was looking at this iirc. There are countries who do it this way.
Kwasi's stamp duty cuts are still there (other parts of his budget were scrapped) with no obvious benefit to the government. I'm not arguing the merits of stamp duty but simply doubt its value as electioneering in its purest form.
What sort of demonstrations are we expecting today? Large numbers were out on the streets of London last week waving Palestinian flags. There were some unsavoury incidents but we were told that this was a minority. Unfair to taint a huge number of people with the views of a small minority. I would feel more comfortable with this view if there were not so many chants of 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea.' It's a Hamas slogan and might be interpreted as support for genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population.
People are of course innocent until proven guilty. They weren't waving Hamas flags or supporting the murder of Jews. If they were they might find themselves in trouble with the law. Proscribing Hamas doesn't mean they don't have supporters in the UK but that those people simply need to be quiet about it. I didn't see people wanting to DISTANCE themselves from Hamas, DISTANCE themselves from Iran, acknowledging that they are part of the reason that the plight of the Palestinians is what it is. DISTANCING themselves from the sadistic massacre of 1300 innocent people.
I also think it is important that one considers the views of those you protest alongside. For instance, I might get annoyed at the way our cultural institutions decide to become obsessed with decolonisation and show little interest in anything else. I might protest but if it was clear to me that the protest was basically a white nationalist movement I'd be very uncomfortable. In fact I would run a mile. It's good to know what the values of your fellow protesters really are other than 'solidarity with the Palestinians.'
I was in the centre of Cardiff last week and heard some people singing. Curious I walked over and there were ten or fifteen people singing Hallelujah in Welsh and waving Palestinian flags. All very sombre. There was a big picture with 3 maps. One was Palestine 1948, one for 1967 and one for 2023 with the blue i.e Palestinian areas getting smaller and smaller. A lady tried to pass me a leaflet, something like 'Jewish People Against Apartheid'. I turned it down but I admit that in terms of pulling on the heartstrings it was mightily effective. No doubt we will see bigger marches and protests today and going forward. What will they look like?
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Cancelling IHT is a good one for Tories since it will force Labour to say what they would do and putting it straight back on would probably not be a good idea for them.
I presume chess-playing Reeves has wargamed out what to do if Sunak does abolish IHT.
Where are the Tories going to find 7 billion a year to fund the IHT scrapping ?
The problem for the Tories is that whilst public services are crumbling tax cuts or scrapping the IHT just look like desperate attempts to grab votes whilst ignoring those issues.
Cut disability benefits and other payments for the workshy.
Yes I forgot for a minute just how cruel they can be . Silly me , of course they’ll go after them.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
There is media participation in luvviedom as well. The BBC is an interesting example. Much BBC coverage of stuff is critically acute and interesting. But there is also the BBC kingdom of luvviedom in which different rules apply. In this strange land no luvvie can ever critique or properly evaluate another one, and no presenter can either. All things are amazing, fantastic, perfect, and beyond criticism. This of course requires an unstated set of agreements about more or less everything or the (stultifying) effect is spoiled.
What sort of demonstrations are we expecting today? Large numbers were out on the streets of London last week waving Palestinian flags. There were some unsavoury incidents but we were told that this was a minority. Unfair to taint a huge number of people with the views of a small minority. I would feel more comfortable with this view if there were not so many chants of 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea.' It's a Hamas slogan and might be interpreted as support for genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population.
People are of course innocent until proven guilty. They weren't waving Hamas flags or supporting the murder of Jews. If they were they might find themselves in trouble with the law. Proscribing Hamas doesn't mean they don't have supporters in the UK but that those people simply need to be quiet about it. I didn't see people wanting to DISTANCE themselves from Hamas, DISTANCE themselves from Iran, acknowledging that they are part of the reason that the plight of the Palestinians is what it is. DISTANCING themselves from the sadistic massacre of 1300 innocent people.
I also think it is important that one considers the views of those you protest alongside. For instance, I might get annoyed at the way our cultural institutions decide to become obsessed with decolonisation and show little interest in anything else. I might protest but if it was clear to me that the protest was basically a white nationalist movement I'd be very uncomfortable. In fact I would run a mile. It's good to know what the values of your fellow protesters really are other than 'solidarity with the Palestinians.'
I was in the centre of Cardiff last week and heard some people singing. Curious I walked over and there were ten or fifteen people singing Hallelujah in Welsh and waving Palestinian flags. All very sombre. There was a big picture with 3 maps. One was Palestine 1948, one for 1967 and one for 2023 with the blue i.e Palestinian areas getting smaller and smaller. A lady tried to pass me a leaflet, something like 'Jewish People Against Apartheid'. I turned it down but I admit that in terms of pulling on the heartstrings it was mightily effective. No doubt we will see bigger marches and protests today and going forward. What will they look like?
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
Things slide and rot as the years in power roll by, yes, but there's something a bit special about what's happened to the Tory Party these last 7 years. Just look at some of the bizarre characters who've gained power and prominence, inc in the cabinet, 2 of them in the top job even. Brexit, I think. Not Brexit the event but Brexit the enabler of Johnson and ERG and ilk, at the expense of the more able and sane.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
Personally, I find antisemitism quite baffling. While I can understand, though of course not condone racism as fear of those who look different, and xenophobia and religious intolerance as fear of those who behave differently, I can see no reason why Jews should be singled out for hatred any more than any other group. I simply don't understand why just being Jewish appears to provoke such strong antipathy in so many people. Although I am atheist and find all religion a bit weird, I don't find Judaism any odder or more threatening than other religions.
At any rational level, anti-semitism is absurd.
Racism may or may not be rational. When two ethnic groups compete for land and resources, racism is rational, if nasty.
But anti-semitism appeals at the emotional, sub-conscious level.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
And so he should.
Why should Rishi Sunak pitch fruitlessly for left-wing votes just so they dislike him a little bit less but still don't vote for him?
It makes sense to pitch in a particular direction, especially if the opposite direction is unlikely to bear fruit. The question will be whether the alternative will prove fertile ground either if even those people a) don't believe you will/can do it b) doesn't think it overcomes the 'time for a change' factors.
I assumed something like Truss 2.0 'Done right this time' was the plan all along, once the ship had been settled, it's just that the ship never got settled much at all but they still need to move on to the positive arguments for voting Tory, even if the national situation is, I suspect, not really ready to receive that message yet because things have gone slower than hoped.
The Labour vote was unchanged in both by-elections, whereas the Tory vote was down 65-70%. Plainly it makes sense to focus on winning back those who sat on their hands.
Don't byelections almost always poll far lower than GEs?
Also, is there not considerable churn, with some Lab voters not turning out, and Con voters switching to give that net overall effect?
Both this and a voter strike by Tory voters in 1997 played their part.
It's a standard bit of copium used once parties are circling the plughole.
Was wondering whether there was this much of an attempt to deny the inevitable by Tories + their media supporters in 1996. So I looked at the Telegraph archive for Oct/Nov that year. And, yes, it's full of it. Some examples coming up...
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
Things slide and rot as the years in power roll by, yes, but there's something a bit special about what's happened to the Tory Party these last 7 years. Just look at some of the bizarre characters who've gained power and prominence, inc in the cabinet, 2 of them in the top job even. Brexit, I think. Not Brexit the event but Brexit the enabler of Johnson and ERG and ilk, at the expense of the more able and sane.
I suspect SeanF purposefully identified 2017, rather than 2016, on the basis that it was the GE that year which broke this iteration of the Conservative Party, rather than Brexit itself.
They were 50-25 ahead in the polls, against a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and they came perilously close to losing office. But in the wake of such a calamity they left in place the person most responsible for it, T May.
That turned out to be a massive mistake as she didn't have the authority to lead, and two years with an absence of that leadership created the conditions for everything that has followed.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
There is media participation in luvviedom as well. The BBC is an interesting example. Much BBC coverage of stuff is critically acute and interesting. But there is also the BBC kingdom of luvviedom in which different rules apply. In this strange land no luvvie can ever critique or properly evaluate another one, and no presenter can either. All things are amazing, fantastic, perfect, and beyond criticism. This of course requires an unstated set of agreements about more or less everything or the (stultifying) effect is spoiled.
The word “luvvie” is grotesquely offensive and the crap that surrounds the term is the reaction of envy. By definition, high profile actors have succeeded in an incredibly difficult profession to make any money whatsoever in. They work incredibly hard, pay their taxes (yes, they do pay their taxes, despite what people on here seem to think) and deserve the same respect as any other profession.
As for your assertion that media types don’t criticise one another well, for a start, it’s not true. The entire profession of theatre and film criticism is part of the media. In any event, I don’t tend to routinely publicly criticise other solicitors by name, nor do I see message boards devoted to logistics managers slagging each other off. People in the same professions tend to support one another. Actors and other artists get criticised by media people paid to criticise them. Suggesting that they go around slagging each other off as well is a frankly risible position to take.
There’s this weird view that certain professions are not “real” people and are therefore unable to have an opinion. A group of broadly left wing barristers signed an open letter the other day on the Israel-Hamas conflict, no comment. A group of broadly left wing actors do the same thing and people on here do their nut. Insane.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
Things slide and rot as the years in power roll by, yes, but there's something a bit special about what's happened to the Tory Party these last 7 years. Just look at some of the bizarre characters who've gained power and prominence, inc in the cabinet, 2 of them in the top job even. Brexit, I think. Not Brexit the event but Brexit the enabler of Johnson and ERG and ilk, at the expense of the more able and sane.
For all the problems of the second Major administration, comparisons between the May 1997 cabinet and the current incumbents suggest a deeper malaise.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
There is media participation in luvviedom as well. The BBC is an interesting example. Much BBC coverage of stuff is critically acute and interesting. But there is also the BBC kingdom of luvviedom in which different rules apply. In this strange land no luvvie can ever critique or properly evaluate another one, and no presenter can either. All things are amazing, fantastic, perfect, and beyond criticism. This of course requires an unstated set of agreements about more or less everything or the (stultifying) effect is spoiled.
The word “luvvie” is grotesquely offensive and the crap that surrounds the term is the reaction of envy. By definition, high profile actors have succeeded in an incredibly difficult profession to make any money whatsoever in. They work incredibly hard, pay their taxes (yes, they do pay their taxes, despite what people on here seem to think) and deserve the same respect as any other profession.
As for your assertion that media types don’t criticise one another well, for a start, it’s not true. The entire profession of theatre and film criticism is part of the media. In any event, I don’t tend to routinely publicly criticise other solicitors by name, nor do I see message boards devoted to logistics managers slagging each other off. People in the same professions tend to support one another. Actors and other artists get criticised by media people paid to criticise them. Suggesting that they go around slagging each other off as well is a frankly risible position to take.
There’s this weird view that certain professions are not “real” people and are therefore unable to have an opinion. A group of broadly left wing barristers signed an open letter the other day on the Israel-Hamas conflict, no comment. A group of broadly left wing actors do the same thing and people on here do their nut. Insane.
There’s nothing especially offensive about “luvvie”. It sums up people whose activism is performative.
Does anyone think this England side is capable of chasing a target over 350?
My instinctive answer is no. But another wicket down, SA might not get there. 300 I think is possible.
The problem is that in the Indian weather whoever fields first is drained by the time they're chasing.
That's been consistent across the board, it's a bit of a problem.
Yet almost every team that wins the toss has been electing to field first. It’s very weird, given that very few have managed to chase the runs in this tournament.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
Things slide and rot as the years in power roll by, yes, but there's something a bit special about what's happened to the Tory Party these last 7 years. Just look at some of the bizarre characters who've gained power and prominence, inc in the cabinet, 2 of them in the top job even. Brexit, I think. Not Brexit the event but Brexit the enabler of Johnson and ERG and ilk, at the expense of the more able and sane.
I suspect SeanF purposefully identified 2017, rather than 2016, on the basis that it was the GE that year which broke this iteration of the Conservative Party, rather than Brexit itself.
They were 50-25 ahead in the polls, against a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and they came perilously close to losing office. But in the wake of such a calamity they left in place the person most responsible for it, T May.
That turned out to be a massive mistake as she didn't have the authority to lead, and two years with an absence of that leadership created the conditions for everything that has followed.
If she’d won a working majority, she’d have had the authority to govern.
Instead, she lost her authority and all foul things came forth out of the woodwork.
Does anyone think this England side is capable of chasing a target over 350?
My instinctive answer is no. But another wicket down, SA might not get there. 300 I think is possible.
The problem is that in the Indian weather whoever fields first is drained by the time they're chasing.
That's been consistent across the board, it's a bit of a problem.
Yes, you can see that with Klassen and he hasn't spent 3 hours in the field first. This is going to be very, very hard but if they lose this they are pretty much coming home.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
There is media participation in luvviedom as well. The BBC is an interesting example. Much BBC coverage of stuff is critically acute and interesting. But there is also the BBC kingdom of luvviedom in which different rules apply. In this strange land no luvvie can ever critique or properly evaluate another one, and no presenter can either. All things are amazing, fantastic, perfect, and beyond criticism. This of course requires an unstated set of agreements about more or less everything or the (stultifying) effect is spoiled.
The word “luvvie” is grotesquely offensive and the crap that surrounds the term is the reaction of envy. By definition, high profile actors have succeeded in an incredibly difficult profession to make any money whatsoever in. They work incredibly hard, pay their taxes (yes, they do pay their taxes, despite what people on here seem to think) and deserve the same respect as any other profession.
As for your assertion that media types don’t criticise one another well, for a start, it’s not true. The entire profession of theatre and film criticism is part of the media. In any event, I don’t tend to routinely publicly criticise other solicitors by name, nor do I see message boards devoted to logistics managers slagging each other off. People in the same professions tend to support one another. Actors and other artists get criticised by media people paid to criticise them. Suggesting that they go around slagging each other off as well is a frankly risible position to take.
There’s this weird view that certain professions are not “real” people and are therefore unable to have an opinion. A group of broadly left wing barristers signed an open letter the other day on the Israel-Hamas conflict, no comment. A group of broadly left wing actors do the same thing and people on here do their nut. Insane.
Excellent points, nearly but not quite addressing mine.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
Things slide and rot as the years in power roll by, yes, but there's something a bit special about what's happened to the Tory Party these last 7 years. Just look at some of the bizarre characters who've gained power and prominence, inc in the cabinet, 2 of them in the top job even. Brexit, I think. Not Brexit the event but Brexit the enabler of Johnson and ERG and ilk, at the expense of the more able and sane.
For all the problems of the second Major administration, comparisons between the May 1997 cabinet and the current incumbents suggest a deeper malaise.
It used to be accepted that Cabinets would be balanced between different wings of the party, not just one faction. (William Hague wrote about this but my Bing skills are not up to finding it.) David Cameron's chumocracy was a departure, and Boris went further by expelling opponents from the party. Keir Starmer risks going the same way. Great for the leader and his SpAd controllers but bad policy and worse government eventually catches up with them and all of us.
'The National Infrastructure Commission advised this week, after an exhaustive investigation of the technology, that hydrogen was not suitable for heating homes. The report was unambiguous: “The Commission’s analysis demonstrates that there is no public policy case for hydrogen to be used to heat individual buildings. It should be ruled out as an option to enable an exclusive focus on switching to electrified heat.”
However, the government indicated to the Guardian that it would continue to push hydrogen for home heating, and the body that represents most of the heating industry also vowed to continue to pursue it.'
Given how long it took us to find a reliable worker to mend a persistent gas leak in our house discovered after we bought it, no thanks, no hydrogen for me!
Handing hydrogen has well defined safety practises and methods. I can’t see how you could put hydrogen through home gas pipes and meet through standards.
To start with Hydrogen embrittles materials by permeating *through* apparently solid material. It can also leak through joints that are 100% gas and water tight.
Hydrogen is completely safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is.
Quite. There was that discussion of science denial in politics a few weeks back on PB. This hydrogen stuff is the sort of thing that makes the Tory Party look like those American legislators who defined pi as 3.000 exactly.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
There is media participation in luvviedom as well. The BBC is an interesting example. Much BBC coverage of stuff is critically acute and interesting. But there is also the BBC kingdom of luvviedom in which different rules apply. In this strange land no luvvie can ever critique or properly evaluate another one, and no presenter can either. All things are amazing, fantastic, perfect, and beyond criticism. This of course requires an unstated set of agreements about more or less everything or the (stultifying) effect is spoiled.
The word “luvvie” is grotesquely offensive and the crap that surrounds the term is the reaction of envy. By definition, high profile actors have succeeded in an incredibly difficult profession to make any money whatsoever in. They work incredibly hard, pay their taxes (yes, they do pay their taxes, despite what people on here seem to think) and deserve the same respect as any other profession.
As for your assertion that media types don’t criticise one another well, for a start, it’s not true. The entire profession of theatre and film criticism is part of the media. In any event, I don’t tend to routinely publicly criticise other solicitors by name, nor do I see message boards devoted to logistics managers slagging each other off. People in the same professions tend to support one another. Actors and other artists get criticised by media people paid to criticise them. Suggesting that they go around slagging each other off as well is a frankly risible position to take.
There’s this weird view that certain professions are not “real” people and are therefore unable to have an opinion. A group of broadly left wing barristers signed an open letter the other day on the Israel-Hamas conflict, no comment. A group of broadly left wing actors do the same thing and people on here do their nut. Insane.
There’s nothing especially offensive about “luvvie”. It sums up people whose activism is performative.
And people slag off lawyers all the time.
Are you either? Speaking as a lawyer myself, the crap that we get is nowhere near as offensive as that which actors get. Just because people are performers doesn’t mean that their activism/opinions are “performative”. You are in no position to make that judgment.
It tends to come as a shock to the elitist right that even people in professions they look down on (sportspeople, actors, musicians) are allowed to vote and have opinions. You can slag them off for it but it just makes you look even more detached from the real world. Marquee Mark, Barty and HYUFD’s opinions on here are clearly performative, virtue signalling to their right wing friends, but they don’t get the same shite.
Weather update: glad we're uphill. This rain is relentless.
Same here, though it has stopped for us - and was never so heavy as north of Forth. *reminded of the risk of reactivation of fossil landslips around here* - though we knowingly bought a house some way away.
And how much money has the Government spent on doing this?
It is protecting itself against the people, and the people against themselves. They may have a bad opinion and wish to express it online. That would never do.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
Personally, I find antisemitism quite baffling. While I can understand, though of course not condone racism as fear of those who look different, and xenophobia and religious intolerance as fear of those who behave differently, I can see no reason why Jews should be singled out for hatred any more than any other group. I simply don't understand why just being Jewish appears to provoke such strong antipathy in so many people. Although I am atheist and find all religion a bit weird, I don't find Judaism any odder or more threatening than other religions.
At any rational level, anti-semitism is absurd.
Racism may or may not be rational. When two ethnic groups compete for land and resources, racism is rational, if nasty.
But anti-semitism appeals at the emotional, sub-conscious level.
The antisemitism of a Palestinian (and more generally in parts of the Arab world) could be termed rational on this distinction.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
There is media participation in luvviedom as well. The BBC is an interesting example. Much BBC coverage of stuff is critically acute and interesting. But there is also the BBC kingdom of luvviedom in which different rules apply. In this strange land no luvvie can ever critique or properly evaluate another one, and no presenter can either. All things are amazing, fantastic, perfect, and beyond criticism. This of course requires an unstated set of agreements about more or less everything or the (stultifying) effect is spoiled.
The word “luvvie” is grotesquely offensive and the crap that surrounds the term is the reaction of envy. By definition, high profile actors have succeeded in an incredibly difficult profession to make any money whatsoever in. They work incredibly hard, pay their taxes (yes, they do pay their taxes, despite what people on here seem to think) and deserve the same respect as any other profession.
As for your assertion that media types don’t criticise one another well, for a start, it’s not true. The entire profession of theatre and film criticism is part of the media. In any event, I don’t tend to routinely publicly criticise other solicitors by name, nor do I see message boards devoted to logistics managers slagging each other off. People in the same professions tend to support one another. Actors and other artists get criticised by media people paid to criticise them. Suggesting that they go around slagging each other off as well is a frankly risible position to take.
There’s this weird view that certain professions are not “real” people and are therefore unable to have an opinion. A group of broadly left wing barristers signed an open letter the other day on the Israel-Hamas conflict, no comment. A group of broadly left wing actors do the same thing and people on here do their nut. Insane.
There’s nothing especially offensive about “luvvie”. It sums up people whose activism is performative.
And people slag off lawyers all the time.
Are you either? Speaking as a lawyer myself, the crap that we get is nowhere near as offensive as that which actors get. Just because people are performers doesn’t mean that their activism/opinions are “performative”. You are in no position to make that judgment.
It tends to come as a shock to the elitist right that even people in professions they look down on (sportspeople, actors, musicians) are allowed to vote and have opinions. You can slag them off for it but it just makes you look even more detached from the real world. Marquee Mark, Barty and HYUFD’s opinions on here are clearly performative, virtue signalling to their right wing friends, but they don’t get the same shite.
Yes, I'm sure that your endorsement of such displays of mind-numbing verbal diarrhea has nothing to do with the fact that they're almost universally in support of the left. If they all supported Refuk, no doubt you'd still be defending them to the hilt.
England have about as much chance winning this cricket match as england do in the rugby later on...and both of those are less than chance than Tories winning the GE.
(That's a rhetorical question, btw. The answer is 'no.')
The problem with Stokes being a non-bowler, Woakes useless in Indian conditions and Livingstone not looking like he doesn't knows which end of the bat to hold, England tail is really long to pick enough bowlers.
Why the hell did England elect to bowl? Chasing teams have done dreadfully all tournament.
Chasing in this weather != Chasing at home.
Some very strange decisions from England throughout the WC. Its chalk and cheese to how they seem to have T20 analysis at another level to everybody else.
It's a real shame they don't feel the need to keep tabs on the number of safeguarding risks working for OFSTED.
“The whole thing makes me even more cynical that no one in the government or the DfE cares about what is happening in schools on a day-to-day basis,” she added.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
What’s a “luvvie”?
I believe traditionally referring to media/entertainment types who are well off but loudly proclaim trendy opinions criticial of 'elites' despite being elites themselves, so arrogantly espouse views and support policies which do not hit them at all, whilst presenting as if of the people.
There is media participation in luvviedom as well. The BBC is an interesting example. Much BBC coverage of stuff is critically acute and interesting. But there is also the BBC kingdom of luvviedom in which different rules apply. In this strange land no luvvie can ever critique or properly evaluate another one, and no presenter can either. All things are amazing, fantastic, perfect, and beyond criticism. This of course requires an unstated set of agreements about more or less everything or the (stultifying) effect is spoiled.
The word “luvvie” is grotesquely offensive and the crap that surrounds the term is the reaction of envy. By definition, high profile actors have succeeded in an incredibly difficult profession to make any money whatsoever in. They work incredibly hard, pay their taxes (yes, they do pay their taxes, despite what people on here seem to think) and deserve the same respect as any other profession.
As for your assertion that media types don’t criticise one another well, for a start, it’s not true. The entire profession of theatre and film criticism is part of the media. In any event, I don’t tend to routinely publicly criticise other solicitors by name, nor do I see message boards devoted to logistics managers slagging each other off. People in the same professions tend to support one another. Actors and other artists get criticised by media people paid to criticise them. Suggesting that they go around slagging each other off as well is a frankly risible position to take.
There’s this weird view that certain professions are not “real” people and are therefore unable to have an opinion. A group of broadly left wing barristers signed an open letter the other day on the Israel-Hamas conflict, no comment. A group of broadly left wing actors do the same thing and people on here do their nut. Insane.
There’s nothing especially offensive about “luvvie”. It sums up people whose activism is performative.
And people slag off lawyers all the time.
Are you either? Speaking as a lawyer myself, the crap that we get is nowhere near as offensive as that which actors get. Just because people are performers doesn’t mean that their activism/opinions are “performative”. You are in no position to make that judgment.
It tends to come as a shock to the elitist right that even people in professions they look down on (sportspeople, actors, musicians) are allowed to vote and have opinions. You can slag them off for it but it just makes you look even more detached from the real world. Marquee Mark, Barty and HYUFD’s opinions on here are clearly performative, virtue signalling to their right wing friends, but they don’t get the same shite.
Solicitor myself.
But, you’re certainly in no position to act as a gatekeeper when it comes to acceptable political discourse.
Take a political stance, and expect to be criticised by those who disagree. And celebrities frequently pronounce on subjects about which they know little, and expect deference.
'The National Infrastructure Commission advised this week, after an exhaustive investigation of the technology, that hydrogen was not suitable for heating homes. The report was unambiguous: “The Commission’s analysis demonstrates that there is no public policy case for hydrogen to be used to heat individual buildings. It should be ruled out as an option to enable an exclusive focus on switching to electrified heat.”
However, the government indicated to the Guardian that it would continue to push hydrogen for home heating, and the body that represents most of the heating industry also vowed to continue to pursue it.'
Given how long it took us to find a reliable worker to mend a persistent gas leak in our house discovered after we bought it, no thanks, no hydrogen for me!
Handing hydrogen has well defined safety practises and methods. I can’t see how you could put hydrogen through home gas pipes and meet through standards.
To start with Hydrogen embrittles materials by permeating *through* apparently solid material. It can also leak through joints that are 100% gas and water tight.
Hydrogen is completely safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is.
Quite. There was that discussion of science denial in politics a few weeks back on PB. This hydrogen stuff is the sort of thing that makes the Tory Party look like those American legislators who defined pi as 3.000 exactly.
Either that, or they know it's a disaster but think they will be able to dump the blame on Labour - who will have to cancel this.
No,I think they genuinely think it's a really good idea. They "did their research". They googled it. They found somebody online who says it's safe. Look! It's on the phone! It must be true! Hydrogen is perfectly safe!
I don't think we have come to terms with the fact that our political classes may, in an entirely serious and unsarcastic way, have become untethered from reality. By abandoning the concept of "expert" and devolving to our own flawed judgement based on an infinitude of internet bullshit means that intelligent and reasonable people think that we can pump hydrogen into homes and nothing will go wrong.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
Personally, I find antisemitism quite baffling. While I can understand, though of course not condone racism as fear of those who look different, and xenophobia and religious intolerance as fear of those who behave differently, I can see no reason why Jews should be singled out for hatred any more than any other group. I simply don't understand why just being Jewish appears to provoke such strong antipathy in so many people. Although I am atheist and find all religion a bit weird, I don't find Judaism any odder or more threatening than other religions.
At any rational level, anti-semitism is absurd.
Racism may or may not be rational. When two ethnic groups compete for land and resources, racism is rational, if nasty.
But anti-semitism appeals at the emotional, sub-conscious level.
The antisemitism of a Palestinian (and more generally in parts of the Arab world) could be termed rational on this distinction.
Not for a non-Palestinian Arab. They are taught to believe the most bizarre nonsense about Jews.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
Things slide and rot as the years in power roll by, yes, but there's something a bit special about what's happened to the Tory Party these last 7 years. Just look at some of the bizarre characters who've gained power and prominence, inc in the cabinet, 2 of them in the top job even. Brexit, I think. Not Brexit the event but Brexit the enabler of Johnson and ERG and ilk, at the expense of the more able and sane.
I suspect SeanF purposefully identified 2017, rather than 2016, on the basis that it was the GE that year which broke this iteration of the Conservative Party, rather than Brexit itself.
They were 50-25 ahead in the polls, against a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and they came perilously close to losing office. But in the wake of such a calamity they left in place the person most responsible for it, T May.
That turned out to be a massive mistake as she didn't have the authority to lead, and two years with an absence of that leadership created the conditions for everything that has followed.
Although I'm not sure who would have done much better once the majority was gone. On the mistake front that was a humdinger, calling that election. With an almost fiendish precision as regards the size and agendas of the various factions it set up a parliament programmed to faff and fight themselves to a standstill. And out of it came Johnson ... Truss ... today.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
Personally, I find antisemitism quite baffling. While I can understand, though of course not condone racism as fear of those who look different, and xenophobia and religious intolerance as fear of those who behave differently, I can see no reason why Jews should be singled out for hatred any more than any other group. I simply don't understand why just being Jewish appears to provoke such strong antipathy in so many people. Although I am atheist and find all religion a bit weird, I don't find Judaism any odder or more threatening than other religions.
At any rational level, anti-semitism is absurd.
Racism may or may not be rational. When two ethnic groups compete for land and resources, racism is rational, if nasty.
But anti-semitism appeals at the emotional, sub-conscious level.
The antisemitism of a Palestinian (and more generally in parts of the Arab world) could be termed rational on this distinction.
Not for a non-Palestinian Arab. They are taught to believe the most bizarre nonsense about Jews.
Which is why Hamas made their bizzare statement about not killing civilians. In their minds, Jews are barely human and can never be civilians, only occupying forces - even women and children.
'The National Infrastructure Commission advised this week, after an exhaustive investigation of the technology, that hydrogen was not suitable for heating homes. The report was unambiguous: “The Commission’s analysis demonstrates that there is no public policy case for hydrogen to be used to heat individual buildings. It should be ruled out as an option to enable an exclusive focus on switching to electrified heat.”
However, the government indicated to the Guardian that it would continue to push hydrogen for home heating, and the body that represents most of the heating industry also vowed to continue to pursue it.'
Given how long it took us to find a reliable worker to mend a persistent gas leak in our house discovered after we bought it, no thanks, no hydrogen for me!
Handing hydrogen has well defined safety practises and methods. I can’t see how you could put hydrogen through home gas pipes and meet through standards.
To start with Hydrogen embrittles materials by permeating *through* apparently solid material. It can also leak through joints that are 100% gas and water tight.
Hydrogen is completely safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is.
Quite. There was that discussion of science denial in politics a few weeks back on PB. This hydrogen stuff is the sort of thing that makes the Tory Party look like those American legislators who defined pi as 3.000 exactly.
Either that, or they know it's a disaster but think they will be able to dump the blame on Labour - who will have to cancel this.
This one is almost certainly about institutional policy.
Hydrogen was supposed to the future. Hydrogen powered cars, planes, everything.
The official world liked it because, unlike electricity, it is easier to control and tax as a product. The big oil companies planned to switch to making hydrogen.
The press was squared, the middle class quite prepared. This was the Proper Policy before 1997
You see similar things with respect to wind (in) solar (in) nuclear (in) tidal (out)
The problem is the Proper Policy doesn’t work. Making hydrogen from electricity to store power is wildly inefficient. Storing and using hydrogen is very problematic.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
I take a liberty there - but in all seriousness the Tory Party have been hollowed out and poisoned by the Brexit/Boris/Truss episode. They're a bit of a shower now. And it's a new thing. For most of my life I've been at odds with their policies and values but haven't felt there's a material difference in what you might call the 'weighted average quality per individual' of their politicians compared to (say) Labour's. But there is now. Boy is there ever.
The Conservative Parliamentary Party has been disgusting, since 2017. The same was true of Labour, from 2007-10. We’d say the same of Labour, some years into their next government.
Things slide and rot as the years in power roll by, yes, but there's something a bit special about what's happened to the Tory Party these last 7 years. Just look at some of the bizarre characters who've gained power and prominence, inc in the cabinet, 2 of them in the top job even. Brexit, I think. Not Brexit the event but Brexit the enabler of Johnson and ERG and ilk, at the expense of the more able and sane.
I suspect SeanF purposefully identified 2017, rather than 2016, on the basis that it was the GE that year which broke this iteration of the Conservative Party, rather than Brexit itself.
They were 50-25 ahead in the polls, against a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and they came perilously close to losing office. But in the wake of such a calamity they left in place the person most responsible for it, T May.
That turned out to be a massive mistake as she didn't have the authority to lead, and two years with an absence of that leadership created the conditions for everything that has followed.
I think the lesson to be drawn from the 2017 campaign is go short when you're massively ahead. 2017GE and 2016Brexit are two elections where a long campaign allowed a large poll lead to be frittered away. If May had gone for the shortest possible campaign and made it single-issue, she may (pun!) have won.
'The National Infrastructure Commission advised this week, after an exhaustive investigation of the technology, that hydrogen was not suitable for heating homes. The report was unambiguous: “The Commission’s analysis demonstrates that there is no public policy case for hydrogen to be used to heat individual buildings. It should be ruled out as an option to enable an exclusive focus on switching to electrified heat.”
However, the government indicated to the Guardian that it would continue to push hydrogen for home heating, and the body that represents most of the heating industry also vowed to continue to pursue it.'
Given how long it took us to find a reliable worker to mend a persistent gas leak in our house discovered after we bought it, no thanks, no hydrogen for me!
Handing hydrogen has well defined safety practises and methods. I can’t see how you could put hydrogen through home gas pipes and meet through standards.
To start with Hydrogen embrittles materials by permeating *through* apparently solid material. It can also leak through joints that are 100% gas and water tight.
Hydrogen is completely safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is.
Quite. There was that discussion of science denial in politics a few weeks back on PB. This hydrogen stuff is the sort of thing that makes the Tory Party look like those American legislators who defined pi as 3.000 exactly.
Either that, or they know it's a disaster but think they will be able to dump the blame on Labour - who will have to cancel this.
No,I think they genuinely think it's a really good idea. They "did their research". They googled it. They found somebody online who says it's safe. Look! It's on the phone! It must be true! Hydrogen is perfectly safe!
I don't think we have come to terms with the fact that our political classes may, in an entirely serious and unsarcastic way, have become untethered from reality. By abandoning the concept of "expert" and devolving to our own flawed judgement based on an infinitude of internet bullshit means that intelligent and reasonable people think that we can pump hydrogen into homes and nothing will go wrong.
It takes only a few minutes of studying the storage of hydrogen, and GCSE-level chemistry, to know that it’s a horrible material to store and move, and requires very special, expensive and with short lifespan, containers and pipes to stop the stuff escaping!
Instead, it’s “yay, less carbon than normal house gas, must be brilliant”.
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/smallbusiness/article-12645261/HMRC-plans-closure-self-assessment-helpline-official-grilled-Treasury-Select-Committee.html
I assumed something like Truss 2.0 'Done right this time' was the plan all along, once the ship had been settled, it's just that the ship never got settled much at all but they still need to move on to the positive arguments for voting Tory, even if the national situation is, I suspect, not really ready to receive that message yet because things have gone slower than hoped.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/20/trump-tom-emmer-speaker-bid-00122875
...During an appearance on the program, top Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn noted that Emmer had yet to endorse Trump in the Republican presidential primary.
“If somebody is so out of step with where the Republican electorate is, where the MAGA movement is, how can they even be in the conversation?” Epshteyn said. “We need a MAGA speaker. That’s what it comes down to. Because if you look at the numbers, if you look at the energy, if you look at the heat, this is the Trump party, this is the MAGA party. It is no longer the old-school khaki establishment Republican Party.”..
Fingertip guess: UK wealth ~ £12 trillion, average life expectancy ~ 85 years, all wealth held by UK taxpayers -> ~ £140 billion in legacies each year -> taxed at 20% -> ~£28 billion receipts i.e. 4 times current revenue from IHT. Total tax receipts currently ~ £1 trillion, so would raise around 3% of tax revenue each year.
I simplified this difference to a possible/impossible dichotomy to make a point, which is that raising taxes in theory is easier than doing so in practice.
Inheritance tax is fundamentally a tax on a transfer of assets, and the reason it raises a lot less then it should in theory raise (given the value of estates and the headline rates and thresholds) is that there are lots of ways to avoid assets being transferred in the simple ladybird book of ownership way.
That's why all this talk of applying income tax rates and allowances to it is so much garbage, and effectively impossible in any practical sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/21/uk-government-keeping-files-on-teaching-assistants-and-librarians-internet-activity
The Fatah wing of the PLO never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but the Israelis were not really interested in a Palestinian state being viable. "From River to Sea" is not just a Palestinian slogan, but also an Israeli ambition.
To start with Hydrogen embrittles materials by permeating *through* apparently solid material. It can also leak through joints that are 100% gas and water tight.
Hydrogen is completely safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is.
Where it does do it I'd want the state to be investing its money in different places, and in the future.
The US will rue the day they re-elect Trump next November.
On the 'what's right rather than popular' front my view is also that IHT should be scrapped but with the proviso that legacies are taxed instead as income in the hands of the recipient. McDonnell was looking at this iirc. There are countries who do it this way.
https://x.com/agraybee/status/1715405782307459489
I don't think non-Jews really grasp that Jewish people's fundamental social trust has been permanently undermined. We now know that our companies' DEI officers would gleefully celebrate our deaths if we were killed by the right people.
It would be worth looking at Ireland to see how a change from IHT to CAT might work and the complexities involved.
People are of course innocent until proven guilty. They weren't waving Hamas flags or supporting the murder of Jews. If they were they might find themselves in trouble with the law. Proscribing Hamas doesn't mean they don't have supporters in the UK but that those people simply need to be quiet about it. I didn't see people wanting to DISTANCE themselves from Hamas, DISTANCE themselves from Iran, acknowledging that they are part of the reason that the plight of the Palestinians is what it is. DISTANCING themselves from the sadistic massacre of 1300 innocent people.
I also think it is important that one considers the views of those you protest alongside. For instance, I might get annoyed at the way our cultural institutions decide to become obsessed with decolonisation and show little interest in anything else. I might protest but if it was clear to me that the protest was basically a white nationalist movement I'd be very uncomfortable. In fact I would run a mile. It's good to know what the values of your fellow protesters really are other than 'solidarity with the Palestinians.'
I was in the centre of Cardiff last week and heard some people singing. Curious I walked over and there were ten or fifteen people singing Hallelujah in Welsh and waving Palestinian flags. All very sombre. There was a big picture with 3 maps. One was Palestine 1948, one for 1967 and one for 2023 with the blue i.e Palestinian areas getting smaller and smaller. A lady tried to pass me a leaflet, something like 'Jewish People Against Apartheid'. I turned it down but I admit that in terms of pulling on the heartstrings it was mightily effective. No doubt we will see bigger marches and protests today and going forward. What will they look like?
The sure sign of the Tories wishing to seriously compete in 2028/9 would be electing Mordaunt despite her supposed wokeness. Badenoch or Braverman would be Hague/IDS redux.
That comes down to a point that I made previously, that this is as much a consequence of an unstable Middle East as it is a cause of it. It cannot imo be fixed without addressing wider questions.
Also, is there not considerable churn, with some Lab voters not turning out, and Con voters switching to give that net overall effect?
Both this and a voter strike by Tory voters in 1997 played their part.
https://twitter.com/tandemkate/status/1715033060394053815
...it was a massive missed opportunity to use the phrase "Amirite, amirite?" and/or "Boom, boom".
As Rishi said to me the other day 😊
Racism may or may not be rational. When two ethnic groups compete for land and resources, racism is rational, if nasty.
But anti-semitism appeals at the emotional, sub-conscious level.
Was wondering whether there was this much of an attempt to deny the inevitable by Tories + their media supporters in 1996. So I looked at the Telegraph archive for Oct/Nov that year. And, yes, it's full of it. Some examples coming up...
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1715432503958282676
They were 50-25 ahead in the polls, against a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and they came perilously close to losing office. But in the wake of such a calamity they left in place the person most responsible for it, T May.
That turned out to be a massive mistake as she didn't have the authority to lead, and two years with an absence of that leadership created the conditions for everything that has followed.
As for your assertion that media types don’t criticise one another well, for a start, it’s not true. The entire profession of theatre and film criticism is part of the media. In any event, I don’t tend to routinely publicly criticise other solicitors by name, nor do I see message boards devoted to logistics managers slagging each other off. People in the same professions tend to support one another. Actors and other artists get criticised by media people paid to criticise them. Suggesting that they go around slagging each other off as well is a frankly risible position to take.
There’s this weird view that certain professions are not “real” people and are therefore unable to have an opinion. A group of broadly left wing barristers signed an open letter the other day on the Israel-Hamas conflict, no comment. A group of broadly left wing actors do the same thing and people on here do their nut. Insane.
That's been consistent across the board, it's a bit of a problem.
Exclusive: Department for Education monitoring social media posts from England-based staff for criticism of its policies
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/21/uk-government-keeping-files-on-teaching-assistants-and-librarians-internet-activity
Teachers too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Major_ministry
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom
And people slag off lawyers all the time.
Instead, she lost her authority and all foul things came forth out of the woodwork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-introduce-leg_b_837828
Either that, or they know it's a disaster but think they will be able to dump the blame on Labour - who will have to cancel this.
It tends to come as a shock to the elitist right that even people in professions they look down on (sportspeople, actors, musicians) are allowed to vote and have opinions. You can slag them off for it but it just makes you look even more detached from the real world. Marquee Mark, Barty and HYUFD’s opinions on here are clearly performative, virtue signalling to their right wing friends, but they don’t get the same shite.
(That's a rhetorical question, btw. The answer is 'no.')
Why the hell did England elect to bowl? Chasing teams have done dreadfully all tournament.
Chasing in this weather != Chasing at home.
What could have possibly given that idea?
As we can see from Rashiid, Klaasen and others it is HOT.
But, you’re certainly in no position to act as a gatekeeper when it comes to acceptable political discourse.
Take a political stance, and expect to be criticised by those who disagree. And celebrities frequently pronounce on subjects about which they know little, and expect deference.
I don't think we have come to terms with the fact that our political classes may, in an entirely serious and unsarcastic way, have become untethered from reality. By abandoning the concept of "expert" and devolving to our own flawed judgement based on an infinitude of internet bullshit means that intelligent and reasonable people think that we can pump hydrogen into homes and nothing will go wrong.
I don't think that applies here.
Hydrogen was supposed to the future. Hydrogen powered cars, planes, everything.
The official world liked it because, unlike electricity, it is easier to control and tax as a product. The big oil companies planned to switch to making hydrogen.
The press was squared, the middle class quite prepared. This was the Proper Policy before 1997
You see similar things with respect to wind (in) solar (in) nuclear (in) tidal (out)
The problem is the Proper Policy doesn’t work. Making hydrogen from electricity to store power is wildly inefficient. Storing and using hydrogen is very problematic.
Low full toss, down the ground and six.
Low full toss, down the ground and six.
Low full toss, down the ground and six.
Low full toss, down the ground and six.
Maybe stop bowling low full tosses?
Instead, it’s “yay, less carbon than normal house gas, must be brilliant”.