Trump's victory leaves Brexit Britain "looking friendless in the post-western world. Squirming and cavilling around Britain’s biggest strategic blunder in a hundred years is not a sustainable path." @rafaelbehr on why Starmer needs to face reality
NATO is useful, though mainly for America. Without America we need to be working with likeminded willing allies, like Poland, but not tying ourselves to a single point of failure where a future EuroTrump (or past Merkel) could dominate European thinking and cause national security issues there.
He's actually saying the UK should join a political union with countries he declares are not friends.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
Agricultural Property Relief on IHT only went to 100% in 1992, and only came in in 1975, so the 100% relief rate is something that has only existed for just over 3 decades. If the family has had the land 375 years then the farm must have paid Estate duties at many points in its history, at varying rates.
In any case, why should farms be treated differently to any other capital intensive business when it comes to IHT?
If the land is sold to pay IHT then it will still be farmed, just by different people. Indeed it might give tenant farmers the start they need to buy the land off the Lord of the Manor.
No it will be farmed by mega corporations with little interest in the land or food production to meet national needs.
The chances of a student fresh out of agricultural college being able to buy a farm and its land worth more than £1 million are less than zero. Tenant farmers won't have over a million pounds in capital either
Spot on HY. It’s not mere tax relief as Fox claims, it’s protecting vital UK industry.
Besides farming for £1M is bit of a joke figure. XX acre farm with house, farm buildings, infrastructure will be many millions in every instance of farming going on, no one is free of the tax raid ministers trotting out the tax raid trying to spin.
The idea that farms that aren't passed on tax-free within families are somehow going to no longer produce food is hilarious.
It reminds me of the that way buy-to-let homes that are no longer profitable for BTL owners are going to magically disappear from the housing stock.
Not necessarily. Depends on who they're sold to and what happens then.
If they're sold to farmers, fine.
If they're sold to developers...
Ho ho. If the farmland is capable of being developed (e.g. turned into housing estates) do you think any farming family (of 375 years standing or not) is going to turn down the payoff that would lead to?
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
Agricultural Property Relief on IHT only went to 100% in 1992, and only came in in 1975, so the 100% relief rate is something that has only existed for just over 3 decades. If the family has had the land 375 years then the farm must have paid Estate duties at many points in its history, at varying rates.
In any case, why should farms be treated differently to any other capital intensive business when it comes to IHT?
If the land is sold to pay IHT then it will still be farmed, just by different people. Indeed it might give tenant farmers the start they need to buy the land off the Lord of the Manor.
No it will be farmed by mega corporations with little interest in the land or food production to meet national needs.
The chances of a student fresh out of agricultural college being able to buy a farm and its land worth more than £1 million are less than zero. Tenant farmers won't have over a million pounds in capital either
Spot on HY. It’s not mere tax relief as Fox claims, it’s protecting vital UK industry.
Besides farming for £1M is bit of a joke figure. XX acre farm with house, farm buildings, infrastructure will be many millions in every instance of farming going on, no one is free of the tax raid ministers trotting out the tax raid trying to spin.
The idea that farms that aren't passed on tax-free within families are somehow going to no longer produce food is hilarious.
It reminds me of the that way buy-to-let homes that are no longer profitable for BTL owners are going to magically disappear from the housing stock.
Not necessarily. Depends on who they're sold to and what happens then.
If they're sold to farmers, fine.
If they're sold to developers...
Similarly, do you want a patchwork quilt of UK based farmers who have been on the land for generations, or do you want 90% of UK produce to be produced wholesale by Monsanto Inc? What does that mean for both price and quality for UK consumers?
When housing stock is sold by small BTL buyers, it is bought by big companies, which can be better or worse for tenants (they may get better quality maintenance for example, but will also face a 5% pa rent ratchet while small landlords prefer to avoid a void period, so raise rents less frequently). Plus some housing stock will go to owners rather than renters, who use space less efficiently, e.g. a 3 bed houseshare becomes a home for a young couple and their child, who occupy only 2 out of 3 bedrooms, with the third becoming a study. Better quality housing will be snapped up by owner occupiers, leading to an overall decline in the stock of rental housing, plus an increase in cost as supply available to rent declines while occupation becomes less efficient.
Housing doesn't disappear, nor does farmland. But ownership changing hands does mean differences to how it's run and who benefits the most...
Trump's victory leaves Brexit Britain "looking friendless in the post-western world. Squirming and cavilling around Britain’s biggest strategic blunder in a hundred years is not a sustainable path." @rafaelbehr on why Starmer needs to face reality
Japan and South Korea and plenty of other democracies are going to have to work out ways to create practical alliances and relationships with like-minded democracies that don't rely on the US, without being EU members. This is potentially a very difficult time for Britain and the last thing the country needs to do is to reopen old divisions, refight past battles, and fail to unite around practical action that will put us in good shape to face the difficult years ahead.
The steps that I would like to see: 1. Rearmament. 2. Commit fully to NATO - without the US if necessary. 3. A security and defence cooperation agreement with the EU (for all the good it will do on a practical level, it will diplomatically improve relations with the EU). 4. Increase defence cooperation with Pacific countries: Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. 5. Put a rocket up the arse of the Irish and explain that the Russians and the Chinese are not going to respect their neutrality, so it's time they grew up and took contributing to common European defence seriously.
Spending more on defence is not going to be easy. It means increasing taxes and reducing spending elsewhere. But the country doesn't want to be caught with its pants down and wishing it had done more now in a few years time.
Gaetz is still under an ethics investigation in the House and was subject to a DOJ investigation into allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a minor and a possible violation of sex trafficking laws.
Sounds on brand at least.
I said we’d get a clue about what a second term would be like from his appointments. I didn’t actually think he surprise on the downside.
The House investigation gets dropped as soon as he is confirmed and no longer in the House it seems.
Trump's victory leaves Brexit Britain "looking friendless in the post-western world. Squirming and cavilling around Britain’s biggest strategic blunder in a hundred years is not a sustainable path." @rafaelbehr on why Starmer needs to face reality
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
They are gonna just love Trump's "normalcy".
Let's see how they are feeling in four years time.
I do not know whether the voters will like it in four years time, but I don't think there is any doubt at all that those who voted Trump knew precisely what they were voting for. It could not have been made clearer. They voted for isolationism, protectionism, strong man theory of government, rejection of climate science in its entirety and border control. They voted for someone who places a question mark over the values of democracy as we have known it. The 52% knew exactly what they were doing.
The worst case scenario for the Trump 2.0 presidency is rapidly becoming reality. Europe may have to treat the US not as an ex-friend, but as an enemy. I can't see any level of intel sharing surviving Gabbard's appointment.
Very likely NATO, AUKUS and five-eyes are all effectively dead.
Must admit I didn't have USA joining the Warsaw Pact on my bingo card.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
So you said, three posts below (or above) a comment from a lefty like me calling for an increase in defence spending, and unity on this issue.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
Agricultural Property Relief on IHT only went to 100% in 1992, and only came in in 1975, so the 100% relief rate is something that has only existed for just over 3 decades. If the family has had the land 375 years then the farm must have paid Estate duties at many points in its history, at varying rates.
In any case, why should farms be treated differently to any other capital intensive business when it comes to IHT?
If the land is sold to pay IHT then it will still be farmed, just by different people. Indeed it might give tenant farmers the start they need to buy the land off the Lord of the Manor.
No it will be farmed by mega corporations with little interest in the land or food production to meet national needs.
The chances of a student fresh out of agricultural college being able to buy a farm and its land worth more than £1 million are less than zero. Tenant farmers won't have over a million pounds in capital either
Spot on HY. It’s not mere tax relief as Fox claims, it’s protecting vital UK industry.
Besides farming for £1M is bit of a joke figure. XX acre farm with house, farm buildings, infrastructure will be many millions in every instance of farming going on, no one is free of the tax raid ministers trotting out the tax raid trying to spin.
The idea that farms that aren't passed on tax-free within families are somehow going to no longer produce food is hilarious.
It reminds me of the that way buy-to-let homes that are no longer profitable for BTL owners are going to magically disappear from the housing stock.
Not necessarily. Depends on who they're sold to and what happens then.
If they're sold to farmers, fine.
If they're sold to developers...
Similarly, do you want a patchwork quilt of UK based farmers who have been on the land for generations, or do you want 90% of UK produce to be produced wholesale by Monsanto Inc? What does that mean for both price and quality for UK consumers?
When housing stock is sold by small BTL buyers, it is bought by big companies, which can be better or worse for tenants (they may get better quality maintenance for example, but will also face a 5% pa rent ratchet while small landlords prefer to avoid a void period, so raise rents less frequently). Plus some housing stock will go to owners rather than renters, who use space less efficiently, e.g. a 3 bed houseshare becomes a home for a young couple and their child, who occupy only 2 out of 3 bedrooms, with the third becoming a study. Better quality housing will be snapped up by owner occupiers, leading to an overall decline in the stock of rental housing, plus an increase in cost as supply available to rent declines while occupation becomes less efficient.
Housing doesn't disappear, nor does farmland. But ownership changing hands does mean differences to how it's run and who benefits the most...
Very few couples with children are flatsharing with others anyway.
The idea that renting is more bedroom-efficient than owner occupiers is a fallacy that comes from comparing the two datasets without controlling for age or childen.
Elderly people who might only need one bedroom as their children have long sing flown the nest are disproportionately owner occupiers. Indeed disproportionately owner occupiers without a mortgage.
Young people are disproportionately tenants.
Control for that and the difference in bedroom usage entirely vanishes.
It is not more "efficient" to have a young couple with a child renting than owning their own home.
Trump won bigly. People actively voted for this. And now Trump's appointments are increasingly Fucking Mental.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
Agricultural Property Relief on IHT only went to 100% in 1992, and only came in in 1975, so the 100% relief rate is something that has only existed for just over 3 decades. If the family has had the land 375 years then the farm must have paid Estate duties at many points in its history, at varying rates.
In any case, why should farms be treated differently to any other capital intensive business when it comes to IHT?
If the land is sold to pay IHT then it will still be farmed, just by different people. Indeed it might give tenant farmers the start they need to buy the land off the Lord of the Manor.
No it will be farmed by mega corporations with little interest in the land or food production to meet national needs.
The chances of a student fresh out of agricultural college being able to buy a farm and its land worth more than £1 million are less than zero. Tenant farmers won't have over a million pounds in capital either
Spot on HY. It’s not mere tax relief as Fox claims, it’s protecting vital UK industry.
Besides farming for £1M is bit of a joke figure. XX acre farm with house, farm buildings, infrastructure will be many millions in every instance of farming going on, no one is free of the tax raid ministers trotting out the tax raid trying to spin.
The idea that farms that aren't passed on tax-free within families are somehow going to no longer produce food is hilarious.
It reminds me of the that way buy-to-let homes that are no longer profitable for BTL owners are going to magically disappear from the housing stock.
Not necessarily. Depends on who they're sold to and what happens then.
If they're sold to farmers, fine.
If they're sold to developers...
Similarly, do you want a patchwork quilt of UK based farmers who have been on the land for generations, or do you want 90% of UK produce to be produced wholesale by Monsanto Inc? What does that mean for both price and quality for UK consumers?
When housing stock is sold by small BTL buyers, it is bought by big companies, which can be better or worse for tenants (they may get better quality maintenance for example, but will also face a 5% pa rent ratchet while small landlords prefer to avoid a void period, so raise rents less frequently). Plus some housing stock will go to owners rather than renters, who use space less efficiently, e.g. a 3 bed houseshare becomes a home for a young couple and their child, who occupy only 2 out of 3 bedrooms, with the third becoming a study. Better quality housing will be snapped up by owner occupiers, leading to an overall decline in the stock of rental housing, plus an increase in cost as supply available to rent declines while occupation becomes less efficient.
Housing doesn't disappear, nor does farmland. But ownership changing hands does mean differences to how it's run and who benefits the most...
My father-in-law's small dairy farm was sold up when he retired (he has five children, there's no way to split it economically and pass it on fairly). It was bought as an IHT avoidance vehicle by someone who'd made their money in entertainment. It's still farmed and producing food with an employed farm manager in place.
Of course the value of the farm was inflated by its IHT benefit, which helped my father-in-law, but it didn't help any budding new farmer who might be looking to buy a farm.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
Even by Trump standards, this an extraordinary demonstration of the extent to which Russia-aligned interests have captured the incoming US executive. What NATO partner (Hungary aside) will trust the US with any intelligence now?
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
The average annual real terms growth for Defence in the budget between 2023-24 and 2025-26 is 2.3%, somewhat below the 2.6% increase allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I would suggest that this is not a significant increase.
Trump's victory leaves Brexit Britain "looking friendless in the post-western world. Squirming and cavilling around Britain’s biggest strategic blunder in a hundred years is not a sustainable path." @rafaelbehr on why Starmer needs to face reality
I must have missed Starmer in France a couple days ago. Really people who hate Brexit cannot stop themselves exaggerating everything.
I regret Brexit, I have Bregret over my vote, but Behr's type of hyperbole actively undermines the future path back, because people will look at it and conclude if that level of talk is over the top, which it is, what else might be?
Streeting orders review of costs to NHS of the assisted dying bill
(Streeting opposes the bill)
Utterly insane!
Is he also reviewing what are the costs of keeping people alive against their clearly expressed wishes FFS!?
It is reported he is asking where he has to cut in the NHS budget to pay the cost
He is anti the bill, and his intervention has caused concerns with supporters of the bill who detect a change in mps opinions not only on this, but Starmer's refusal today to provide more time for discussion across the house which is very divided
His intervention is mad. How about cutting the treatments that would have been given to people but now won't, as they're dead?
Of all the reasons to oppose the bill that has to be the weakest.
No it is not mad at all.
The Bill seeks to impose a legal duty on the NHS. That will have resourcing and cost implications and any responsible Secretary of State should assess that and make MPs aware of it.
Why are the Bill's supporters so afraid of scrutiny?
I'm not afraid of scrutiny - but if a resourcing implication is done then it should be a completely balanced implication covering cost savings and not just costs, swings and roundabouts.
Except then opponents of the bill would decry a report saying it should be legalised as it would save the NHS money. For good reason.
But to pretend there is only one side to the cost debate is not scrutiny, its dishonesty.
I look forward to the Bill's proponents in Parliament saying what you have just said - that people should die and be assisted in dying - in order to save the NHS money.
I feel sure this principle could be expanded a lot further in the NHS (and, indeed, elsewhere) to save the government and taxpayers money.
"All those useless mouths - that was the essence of the Matthew Parris article on this topic. But I feel sure it had earlier echoes.
PS In any event the NHS does not have a legal duty to provide palliative care, patients are not obliged to have medical treatment and most palliative care is provided by charities. So comparing the costs of a legal duty to the costs of something which is not a legal duty and which is primarily not funded by government is not a proper comparison and rather better merits your description of "dishonesty".
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
The £22bn black hole was important to firm up labour support as well for a difficult budget.
Speaking as a lefty, it's very hard to see a budget that keeps international aid at 0.5%, that keeps the two child benefit cap, that doesn't introduce a wealth tax/land value tax etc.
Raising defence spending I think I can just about get behind provided it's spent much better than the typical MoD average. I'm no expert but it seems like warfare has changed - we need drone divisions and tech manufacturing... not submarines and aircraft carriers?
Trump won bigly. People actively voted for this. And now Trump's appointments are increasingly Fucking Mental.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
I'm wondering how well all these mega-ego appointees are going to get along. Surely some spectacular internecine carnage is inevitable?
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
Trump won bigly. People actively voted for this. And now Trump's appointments are increasingly Fucking Mental.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
I'm wondering how well all these mega-ego appointees are going to get along. Surely some spectacular internecine carnage is inevitable?
Musk has apparently already pissed off a bunch of them
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
The average annual real terms growth for Defence in the budget between 2023-24 and 2025-26 is 2.3%, somewhat below the 2.6% increase allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I would suggest that this is not a significant increase.
It is an increase on Tory expenditure. Perhaps not enough, but it is the Tories who have been cutting military numbers these last years.
Streeting orders review of costs to NHS of the assisted dying bill
(Streeting opposes the bill)
Utterly insane!
Is he also reviewing what are the costs of keeping people alive against their clearly expressed wishes FFS!?
It is reported he is asking where he has to cut in the NHS budget to pay the cost
He is anti the bill, and his intervention has caused concerns with supporters of the bill who detect a change in mps opinions not only on this, but Starmer's refusal today to provide more time for discussion across the house which is very divided
His intervention is mad. How about cutting the treatments that would have been given to people but now won't, as they're dead?
Of all the reasons to oppose the bill that has to be the weakest.
No it is not mad at all.
The Bill seeks to impose a legal duty on the NHS. That will have resourcing and cost implications and any responsible Secretary of State should assess that and make MPs aware of it.
Why are the Bill's supporters so afraid of scrutiny?
I'm not afraid of scrutiny - but if a resourcing implication is done then it should be a completely balanced implication covering cost savings and not just costs, swings and roundabouts.
Except then opponents of the bill would decry a report saying it should be legalised as it would save the NHS money. For good reason.
But to pretend there is only one side to the cost debate is not scrutiny, its dishonesty.
I look forward to the Bill's proponents in Parliament saying what you have just said - that people should die and be assisted in dying - in order to save the NHS money.
I feel sure this principle could be expanded a lot further in the NHS (and, indeed, elsewhere) to save the government and taxpayers money.
"All those useless mouths - that was the essence of the Matthew Parris article on this topic. But I feel sure it had earlier echoes.
Come on, you're better than that, you have integrity so why misrepresent what I said like that?
I explicitly and repeatedly said that argument is not and should not be made.
But if you want to go down the route of analysing "costs" under the pretence of it being "scrutiny" then the "costs" should be balanced with the cost savings for an honest outlook, should it not?
Trump won bigly. People actively voted for this. And now Trump's appointments are increasingly Fucking Mental.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
I'm wondering how well all these mega-ego appointees are going to get along. Surely some spectacular internecine carnage is inevitable?
Given the nature of presidential government I'm not sure how much they all work together in practice, or whether Trump thinks everything is sufficiently silo'd (outside of a few cross cutting roles) that you can have seriously clashing people operating on their own areas mostly ok. For all I know that's already how things work.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
Agricultural Property Relief on IHT only went to 100% in 1992, and only came in in 1975, so the 100% relief rate is something that has only existed for just over 3 decades. If the family has had the land 375 years then the farm must have paid Estate duties at many points in its history, at varying rates.
In any case, why should farms be treated differently to any other capital intensive business when it comes to IHT?
If the land is sold to pay IHT then it will still be farmed, just by different people. Indeed it might give tenant farmers the start they need to buy the land off the Lord of the Manor.
No it will be farmed by mega corporations with little interest in the land or food production to meet national needs.
The chances of a student fresh out of agricultural college being able to buy a farm and its land worth more than £1 million are less than zero. Tenant farmers won't have over a million pounds in capital either
Spot on HY. It’s not mere tax relief as Fox claims, it’s protecting vital UK industry.
Besides farming for £1M is bit of a joke figure. XX acre farm with house, farm buildings, infrastructure will be many millions in every instance of farming going on, no one is free of the tax raid ministers trotting out the tax raid trying to spin.
The idea that farms that aren't passed on tax-free within families are somehow going to no longer produce food is hilarious.
It reminds me of the that way buy-to-let homes that are no longer profitable for BTL owners are going to magically disappear from the housing stock.
Not necessarily. Depends on who they're sold to and what happens then.
If they're sold to farmers, fine.
If they're sold to developers...
Similarly, do you want a patchwork quilt of UK based farmers who have been on the land for generations, or do you want 90% of UK produce to be produced wholesale by Monsanto Inc? What does that mean for both price and quality for UK consumers?
When housing stock is sold by small BTL buyers, it is bought by big companies, which can be better or worse for tenants (they may get better quality maintenance for example, but will also face a 5% pa rent ratchet while small landlords prefer to avoid a void period, so raise rents less frequently). Plus some housing stock will go to owners rather than renters, who use space less efficiently, e.g. a 3 bed houseshare becomes a home for a young couple and their child, who occupy only 2 out of 3 bedrooms, with the third becoming a study. Better quality housing will be snapped up by owner occupiers, leading to an overall decline in the stock of rental housing, plus an increase in cost as supply available to rent declines while occupation becomes less efficient.
Housing doesn't disappear, nor does farmland. But ownership changing hands does mean differences to how it's run and who benefits the most...
My father-in-law's small dairy farm was sold up when he retired (he has five children, there's no way to split it economically and pass it on fairly). It was bought as an IHT avoidance vehicle by someone who'd made their money in entertainment. It's still farmed and producing food with an employed farm manager in place.
Of course the value of the farm was inflated by its IHT benefit, which helped my father-in-law, but it didn't help any budding new farmer who might be looking to buy a farm.
Cynically I wonder if the reason it's set at 20% not 40% is to allow some continuation of this tax avoidance strategy, just ensure treasury gets some of the gains. It would probably be better for farmers if the relief was completely removed...
Trump won bigly. People actively voted for this. And now Trump's appointments are increasingly Fucking Mental.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
I'm wondering how well all these mega-ego appointees are going to get along. Surely some spectacular internecine carnage is inevitable?
Musk has apparently already pissed off a bunch of them
His influence and cash would, I think, make Trump more inclined to listen to him than others, though he has bragged about not needing to when President in the past.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
Trump won bigly. People actively voted for this. And now Trump's appointments are increasingly Fucking Mental.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
I'm wondering how well all these mega-ego appointees are going to get along. Surely some spectacular internecine carnage is inevitable?
Potentially! But I suspect that ultimately they will all share the same enemies - women, illegals, liberals, wokeys, gayers, students, women, journalists, bureaucrats, surrender monkeys, women etc.
Focus on America's enemies will stop them fighting each other
Even the Supreme Court can't wreck the Constitution to overrule term limits.
Why not?
If they can rule that the law doesn't apply to the President, why would the Constitution?
Polls show the public wouldn’t support a change allowing more than two terms for President . The constitution wasn’t clear on immunity but is crystal clear on term limits . I have many concerns about the next 4 years but this isn’t one of them .
It’s only clear that someone can’t be elected more than twice. It’s silent on other methods of becoming President.
The 22nd doesn’t say he’s ineligible to be president. Only that he’s ineligible to be elected president.
Is the title "president" really so important? The constitution doesn't stop him becoming Lord Protector.
Except that President exists and has powers under the constitution.
Lord Protector does not.
Lady Protector of the Anglosphere Commonwealth:
UK + Crown Dependencies + Overseas Territories + Commonwealth Realms NOT listed below US + Territories + Freely Associated States (Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau) Canadia AUS + Territories + defence arrangements (Nauru, Kiribati) NZ + Territories + defence arrangements (Samoa) Ireland
Based on the most recent national elections in the above lands, and apportioning Electoral College electors across them on a pro rata basis, just for a bit of fun, we get:
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
The average annual real terms growth for Defence in the budget between 2023-24 and 2025-26 is 2.3%, somewhat below the 2.6% increase allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I would suggest that this is not a significant increase.
It is an increase on Tory expenditure. Perhaps not enough, but it is the Tories who have been cutting military numbers these last years.
Not so much these last years but there were significant cuts in the coalition era.
Cameron had the unique mix of being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.
Trump won bigly. People actively voted for this. And now Trump's appointments are increasingly Fucking Mental.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
I'm wondering how well all these mega-ego appointees are going to get along. Surely some spectacular internecine carnage is inevitable?
Potentially! But I suspect that ultimately they will all share the same enemies - women, illegals, liberals, wokeys, gayers, students, women, journalists, bureaucrats, surrender monkeys, women etc.
Focus on America's enemies will stop them fighting each other
They'd better hope Trump's health holds out, without him as the point man who knows how well they hold together under Vance.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
Do we have the capability to do anything about it if it happened?
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
The £22bn black hole was important to firm up labour support as well for a difficult budget.
Speaking as a lefty, it's very hard to see a budget that keeps international aid at 0.5%, that keeps the two child benefit cap, that doesn't introduce a wealth tax/land value tax etc.
Raising defence spending I think I can just about get behind provided it's spent much better than the typical MoD average. I'm no expert but it seems like warfare has changed - we need drone divisions and tech manufacturing... not submarines and aircraft carriers?
Submarines we still need. Particularly if the US stops being even vaguely reliable as an ally. Carriers are indeed, for us, pointless and a huge drain on resources.
For the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, I’m genuinely worried about the security of Europe.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I've read a couple of his books, but don't know if his views are typical of the party or not. Though pretty much every party suggested increasing defence spending IIRC, even Reform who counterintuitively seemed opposed to doing anything with it.
I don't think the Greens committed to that, but even then their manifesto talked about the important role of NATO.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
We have to cut our suit according to our cloth. We withdrew from East of Suez before I started school.
We should not have pretentions to being a global military power. We have the forces to be useful in Europe and North Atlantic, but nothing significant further afield.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
It had good bits and bad bits. Justice and defence were bad bits
Even the Supreme Court can't wreck the Constitution to overrule term limits.
Why not?
If they can rule that the law doesn't apply to the President, why would the Constitution?
Polls show the public wouldn’t support a change allowing more than two terms for President . The constitution wasn’t clear on immunity but is crystal clear on term limits . I have many concerns about the next 4 years but this isn’t one of them .
It’s only clear that someone can’t be elected more than twice. It’s silent on other methods of becoming President.
The 22nd doesn’t say he’s ineligible to be president. Only that he’s ineligible to be elected president.
Is the title "president" really so important? The constitution doesn't stop him becoming Lord Protector.
Except that President exists and has powers under the constitution.
Lord Protector does not.
Lady Protector of the Anglosphere Commonwealth:
UK + Crown Dependencies + Overseas Territories + Commonwealth Realms NOT listed below US + Territories + Freely Associated States (Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau) Canadia AUS + Territories + defence arrangements (Nauru, Kiribati) NZ + Territories + defence arrangements (Samoa) Ireland
Based on the most recent national elections in the above lands, and apportioning Electoral College electors across them on a pro rata basis, just for a bit of fun, we get:
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
Do we have the capability to do anything about it if it happened?
If we don't, and if the US isn't willing to do so, then that's a few more democracies swept aside.
This is why I think we have to spend more so that we do have the capability to do something about it.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
Do we have the capability to do anything about it if it happened?
If we don't, and if the US isn't willing to do so, then that's a few more democracies swept aside.
This is why I think we have to spend more so that we do have the capability to do something about it.
I support the initiative, but I think we're a lot poorer than we think, and am not sure even a substantial increase would in the medium term get us to a position of having such capabiliy. I'm not sure anyone does besides the USA (China sure hopes that is the case).
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
It had good bits and bad bits. Justice and defence were bad bits
Triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees were also bad bits.
Good bits included increasing VAT, stopping ID cards, pension reforms and bringing in some rigour to school exam grades.
Even by Trump standards, this an extraordinary demonstration of the extent to which Russia-aligned interests have captured the incoming US executive. What NATO partner (Hungary aside) will trust the US with any intelligence now?
Britain and its allies will wait and see for a bit. And both be charming towards Trump, and start to boost our own defences to open up other choices (and to meet him demands on defence spending). In the real world, nobody will immediately shout and scream and run away from the US.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
It had good bits and bad bits. Justice and defence were bad bits
Triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees were also bad bits.
Good bits included increasing VAT, stopping ID cards, pension reforms and bringing in some rigour to school exam grades.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
We have to cut our suit according to our cloth. We withdrew from East of Suez before I started school.
We should not have pretentions to being a global military power. We have the forces to be useful in Europe and North Atlantic, but nothing significant further afield.
Ignoring facts is the road to defeat.
We shouldn't be seeking to do anything alone, but in alliance with other countries I think we have no option but to stand with democracies across the world.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
Also the Aussies, Japan, and Korea are natural defence partners when it comes to buying new kit. There are existing plans and they are more reliable than the EU.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
The average annual real terms growth for Defence in the budget between 2023-24 and 2025-26 is 2.3%, somewhat below the 2.6% increase allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I would suggest that this is not a significant increase.
It is an increase on Tory expenditure. Perhaps not enough, but it is the Tories who have been cutting military numbers these last years.
Not so much these last years but there were significant cuts in the coalition era.
Cameron had the unique mix of being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.
Biggest mistake the non-political bits of the MOD made was not saying “sorry Prime Minister, you cut it all” when he called on it for Libya.
I support the initiative, but I think we're a lot poorer than we think, and am not sure even a substantial increase would in the medium term get us to a position of having such capabiliy. I'm not sure anyone does besides the USA (China sure hopes that is the case).
With our current capabilities there's very little the UK can do outside of Europe. Changing that would require significant long-term investment. Forget about 2.5% of GDP on defence, we'd be debating 5% vs 10% to be able to project significant power in other regions.
At present I don't believe we can look much beyond Ukraine. Priorities need to be short-term; investing in maintenance so the maximum possible number of ships, aircraft and tanks are available for service. Ramping production of missiles, shells and spare parts. Thinking "We're going to war in six months" rather than "Can we build more than 6 Type 45 replacements?"
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
Apart from LuckyGuy, does any other PB poster support Tulsiz point of view?
Not even 3-Way Nick goes that far? And Dura knows Putin as a fascist bell end, doesn’t trust him or his motives.
Wherever the Trump administration is getting all this, it’s not from us.
Several PBers have supported Trump or been Trump-curious. They’ve suggested Trump wouldn’t necessarily be bad for Ukraine. I think it would embarrass them too much to name names!
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There are two obvious things for us to be investing into: 1. Clean energy. Develop and manufacture wind turbines and tidal generators. Wind power is great, less so when all the turbines are Danish. 2. Food production. Investing into farming and fishing and processing. Not the opposite as Labour are doing. Not crippling the whole thing as the Tories did.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
I think he is deeply mistaken to think that Britain can concentrate solely on defending the Euro-Atlantic area from Russia.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
Do we have the capability to do anything about it if it happened?
If we don't, and if the US isn't willing to do so, then that's a few more democracies swept aside.
This is why I think we have to spend more so that we do have the capability to do something about it.
Obviously we don't have the capacity to intervene if, for example, China invaded Taiwan. But that doesn't mean defence cooperation with S Korea/Japan/Australia etc isn't in both their and our interests. And would help make such an eventuality slightly less likely.
With Europe it's even more stark. If Germany and France don't stay committed allies of the Northern European countries, then we're in a very dangerous situation over the next decade.
With unfortunate timing, I just acquired a copy of "Up Against the Wall", which is a history of the KGB in postwar, Soviet occupied Latvia.
I support the initiative, but I think we're a lot poorer than we think, and am not sure even a substantial increase would in the medium term get us to a position of having such capabiliy. I'm not sure anyone does besides the USA (China sure hopes that is the case).
With our current capabilities there's very little the UK can do outside of Europe. Changing that would require significant long-term investment. Forget about 2.5% of GDP on defence, we'd be debating 5% vs 10% to be able to project significant power in other regions.
At present I don't believe we can look much beyond Ukraine. Priorities need to be short-term; investing in maintenance so the maximum possible number of ships, aircraft and tanks are available for service. Ramping production of missiles, shells and spare parts. Thinking "We're going to war in six months" rather than "Can we build more than 6 Type 45 replacements?"
Yes, in the short term we need to stockpile ammunition and other supplies, and prioritise repair and recruitment to technical roles needed to get the fleet seaworthy again and other forces combat capable. Building new ships and planes takes a decade or more.
Nationalising the RAF flight training after the botched Tory privatisation should also be a priority.
Apart from LuckyGuy, does any other PB poster support Tulsiz point of view?
Not even 3-Way Nick goes that far? And Dura knows Putin as a fascist bell end, doesn’t trust him or his motives.
Wherever the Trump administration is getting all this, it’s not from us.
Several PBers have supported Trump or been Trump-curious. They’ve suggested Trump wouldn’t necessarily be bad for Ukraine. I think it would embarrass them too much to name names!
The case for Trump not necessarily being bad for Ukraine doesn’t depend on him appointing neocons to the government.
The most important part of Europe's response right now is Germany. And specifically German elections in February.
Why? Germany had huge fiscal headroom if it wanted to use it. With debt at under 40% of GDP and by far the largest economy in Europe, it could finance the defence of Ukraine and Europe without any (economic) issue. It would also stimulate manufacturing in an economy that will be hard hit by sanctions.
If Europe steps up, then Trump can't force Ukraine to accept defeat. If it doesn't, then it may have no other choice at some point next year.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
It had good bits and bad bits. Justice and defence were bad bits
Triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees were also bad bits.
Good bits included increasing VAT, stopping ID cards, pension reforms and bringing in some rigour to school exam grades.
Stopping ID cards was a huge mistake.
The ID card database plans were literally insane.
The database project was a guaranteed failure from the start. Actually worse than the giant NHS IT project failures.
They would, incidentally be a massive breach of a number of modern EU laws on data protection and control of personal data.
Guess what - the proposal to introduce ID cards, again, that endlessly pops up in Whitehall, has the same database ideas. So if implemented would mean either we never align with EU data laws or the system would have to scrapped.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
It's possible the best measure of our defence strength, as technology advances, isn't the number of employees.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
That is all true, but those cuts were made at a time when we (mistakenly, but perhaps not surprisingly) believed our defence needs had reduced.
It is now abundantly clear (even before Trump's win) that our defence needs have increased. The budget doesn't adequately reflect that imo.
(Oh and @another_richard I am very much of the left and would agree with your 4% on defence. The world has changed and we need to change with it. I think you have a caricature of a lefty in your mind.)
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
Julia Ioffe @juliaioffe · 1h So excited for another four years of “Republicans, Shocked and Disgusted in Private, Unanimously Vote for Trump’s Agenda Anyway” stories
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
The latter is the issue for a lot of what is coming imho.
As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
Apart from LuckyGuy, does any other PB poster support Tulsiz point of view?
Not even 3-Way Nick goes that far? And Dura knows Putin as a fascist bell end, doesn’t trust him or his motives.
Wherever the Trump administration is getting all this, it’s not from us.
Several PBers have supported Trump or been Trump-curious. They’ve suggested Trump wouldn’t necessarily be bad for Ukraine. I think it would embarrass them too much to name names!
Rather than named and shamed, the Trump supporters might wear it with pride, like ASBO’s were 🤦♀️
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
That is all true, but those cuts were made at a time when we (mistakenly, but perhaps not surprisingly) believed our defence needs had reduced.
It is now abundantly clear (even before Trump's win) that our defence needs have increased. The budget doesn't adequately reflect that imo.
(Oh and @another_richard I am very much of the left and would agree with your 4% on defence. The world has changed and we need to change with it. I think you have a caricature of a lefty in your mind.)
There is an argument against increasing defence spending (that I do not necessarily subscribe to).
Ukraine has managed to fend off Russia for two years with no NATO air support or boots on the ground. They took them on in exactly the kind of warfare the Russians excel at - artillery, and held them to a stalemate.
I do think we need to be clear about exactly why we are increasing spending, and what kind of battles we intend to fight, rather than spamming cash at the MOD.
The most important part of Europe's response right now is Germany. And specifically German elections in February.
Why? Germany had huge fiscal headroom if it wanted to use it. With debt at under 40% of GDP and by far the largest economy in Europe, it could finance the defence of Ukraine and Europe without any (economic) issue. It would also stimulate manufacturing in an economy that will be hard hit by sanctions.
If Europe steps up, then Trump can't force Ukraine to accept defeat. If it doesn't, then it may have no other choice at some point next year.
That is what both gives me hope, and worries me. Germany is at an inflection point. It could go either way
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
The latter is the issue for a lot of what is coming imho.
As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
The third term isn’t happening . Notwithstanding his age the constitution is clear on that .
Looks like Putin's unsubtle warning to Trump on evening 'news' show has worked.
Yes, it seems to have resulted in the shocking volte face of Trump appointing someone who was central to his Presidential campaign to a senior role within his new administration.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
It's possible the best measure of our defence strength, as technology advances, isn't the number of employees.
By employees you presumably mean servicemen (and women), but numbers of ships, tanks, artillery have also shrunk.
It all depends on what sort of war we might have to fight, but the Russo-Ukranian war demonstrate the importance of numbers and stocks of ammo. Currently we can field a single division and keep it equipped and supplied for a few weeks. That might be fine for Desert Storm, but would be like the BEF in WW1 or WW2 simply overwhelmed by a full scale conflict with a major power.
The appointment of Gabbard gives an extra perspective on this.
Members of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team are drawing up a list of military officers to be fired, potentially to include the Joint Chiefs of Staff. https://x.com/idreesali114/status/1856805210724655564
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
The latter is the issue for a lot of what is coming imho.
As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
The third term isn’t happening . Notwithstanding his age the constitution is clear on that .
That is what both gives me hope, and worries me. Germany is at an inflection point. It could go either way
We need Merz to be the next Bundeskanzler. If Germany, France, the UK and Poland all commit to doing whatever is necessary for Ukraine to win then Russia will be climbing a very steep hill.
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
The latter is the issue for a lot of what is coming imho.
As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
The appointment of Gabbard gives an extra perspective on this.
Members of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team are drawing up a list of military officers to be fired, potentially to include the Joint Chiefs of Staff. https://x.com/idreesali114/status/1856805210724655564
It's possible the Trump team is merely cackhanded rather than actively working for Putin, but if so, could we tell the difference?
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
That is all true, but those cuts were made at a time when we (mistakenly, but perhaps not surprisingly) believed our defence needs had reduced.
It is now abundantly clear (even before Trump's win) that our defence needs have increased. The budget doesn't adequately reflect that imo.
(Oh and @another_richard I am very much of the left and would agree with your 4% on defence. The world has changed and we need to change with it. I think you have a caricature of a lefty in your mind.)
Pleased to read it.
But with no disrespect to your good self the lefties who matter are those elected in July.
Starmer has the numbers in parliament to vote through a big increase in defence spending.
But does he want to and is he willing to tell the public that their taxes will be increased to pay for it ?
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
The latter is the issue for a lot of what is coming imho.
As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
l.
I see you've found a picture of Trump's pick for Health Secretary.
The appointment of Gabbard gives an extra perspective on this.
Members of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team are drawing up a list of military officers to be fired, potentially to include the Joint Chiefs of Staff. https://x.com/idreesali114/status/1856805210724655564
It's possible the Trump team is merely cackhanded rather than actively working for Putin, but if so, could we tell the difference?
This aint cackhanded. This is revenge.
Phil Stewart @phildstewart · 1h "Every single person that was elevated and appointed by Milley will be gone." a source tells us "There's a very detailed list of everybody that was affiliated with Milley. And they will all be gone."
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
It's possible the best measure of our defence strength, as technology advances, isn't the number of employees.
By employees you presumably mean servicemen (and women), but numbers of ships, tanks, artillery have also shrunk.
It all depends on what sort of war we might have to fight, but the Russo-Ukranian war demonstrate the importance of numbers and stocks of ammo. Currently we can field a single division and keep it equipped and supplied for a few weeks. That might be fine for Desert Storm, but would be like the BEF in WW1 or WW2 simply overwhelmed by a full scale conflict with a major power.
Hence my comment the other day about buy 2-3,000 modern artillery pieces. Which would give us more artillery than the rest of Europe. Put together.
Assume 50,000 shells fired per day. So 10 million shells would give us 200 days of ammunition. at that volume, the shell bodies would be of the order of £5000 each. So 20 billion for the artillery, and 5 billion for the ammunition.
Note that that shell bodies (the lump of metal) are both the expensive bit, and have no shell life. You cast a shell body and it's good for a 100 years. If filled, the explosives have a shelf life of a couple of decades - depends on the fill. So a stockpile of shell bodies would not just be for Christmas - it would be for centuries.
The NATO 155mm standard has been around for generations. And it's not going anywhere.
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
They are gonna just love Trump's "normalcy".
Let's see how they are feeling in four years time.
I do not know whether the voters will like it in four years time, but I don't think there is any doubt at all that those who voted Trump knew precisely what they were voting for. It could not have been made clearer. They voted for isolationism, protectionism, strong man theory of government, rejection of climate science in its entirety and border control. They voted for someone who places a question mark over the values of democracy as we have known it. The 52% knew exactly what they were doing.
Trump 312 Harris 226
That is getting very tiresome now Sunil. Time to retire the post?
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
Comments
https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1856802473534451940
A very high level of derangement.
ISTR farmers were unhappy about parasite contamination from pet faeces affecting their animals, but I'm not sure what came of that.
It's an interesting issue, with more to it than the usual knee-jerk wokehunting.
When housing stock is sold by small BTL buyers, it is bought by big companies, which can be better or worse for tenants (they may get better quality maintenance for example, but will also face a 5% pa rent ratchet while small landlords prefer to avoid a void period, so raise rents less frequently). Plus some housing stock will go to owners rather than renters, who use space less efficiently, e.g. a 3 bed houseshare becomes a home for a young couple and their child, who occupy only 2 out of 3 bedrooms, with the third becoming a study. Better quality housing will be snapped up by owner occupiers, leading to an overall decline in the stock of rental housing, plus an increase in cost as supply available to rent declines while occupation becomes less efficient.
Housing doesn't disappear, nor does farmland. But ownership changing hands does mean differences to how it's run and who benefits the most...
Spoiler alert it wasn't the Dems.
Japan and South Korea and plenty of other democracies are going to have to work out ways to create practical alliances and relationships with like-minded democracies that don't rely on the US, without being EU members. This is potentially a very difficult time for Britain and the last thing the country needs to do is to reopen old divisions, refight past battles, and fail to unite around practical action that will put us in good shape to face the difficult years ahead.
The steps that I would like to see:
1. Rearmament.
2. Commit fully to NATO - without the US if necessary.
3. A security and defence cooperation agreement with the EU (for all the good it will do on a practical level, it will diplomatically improve relations with the EU).
4. Increase defence cooperation with Pacific countries: Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
5. Put a rocket up the arse of the Irish and explain that the Russians and the Chinese are not going to respect their neutrality, so it's time they grew up and took contributing to common European defence seriously.
Spending more on defence is not going to be easy. It means increasing taxes and reducing spending elsewhere. But the country doesn't want to be caught with its pants down and wishing it had done more now in a few years time.
Harris 226
The idea that renting is more bedroom-efficient than owner occupiers is a fallacy that comes from comparing the two datasets without controlling for age or childen.
Elderly people who might only need one bedroom as their children have long sing flown the nest are disproportionately owner occupiers. Indeed disproportionately owner occupiers without a mortgage.
Young people are disproportionately tenants.
Control for that and the difference in bedroom usage entirely vanishes.
It is not more "efficient" to have a young couple with a child renting than owning their own home.
This is going to be fun. Even if Trump spends all his time playing golf, or trapped inside Mar-a-Lago and not allowed out, his administration is going to be spectacularrrrr.
Remember that some of the worst excesses of the 3rd Reich were officials "working towards the Fuhrer", rather than the Fuhrer himself dictating. So even if the Donald is too busy eating Big Macs, his team will be on Planet Unhinged with the full power of Murica behind them.
Of course the value of the farm was inflated by its IHT benefit, which helped my father-in-law, but it didn't help any budding new farmer who might be looking to buy a farm.
https://x.com/threshedthought/status/1856273430523326637?s=46
Mark Martin is on the defence select committee.
What a shitstorm he is now entering.
Ruth Deyermond @ruthdeyermond.bsky.social
·
20m
Even by Trump standards, this an extraordinary demonstration of the extent to which Russia-aligned interests have captured the incoming US executive. What NATO partner (Hungary aside) will trust the US with any intelligence now?
https://bsky.app/profile/ruthdeyermond.bsky.social/post/3laubt55k2s2f
I feel sure this principle could be expanded a lot further in the NHS (and, indeed, elsewhere) to save the government and taxpayers money.
"All those useless mouths - that was the essence of the Matthew Parris article on this topic. But I feel sure it had earlier echoes.
PS In any event the NHS does not have a legal duty to provide palliative care, patients are not obliged to have medical treatment and most palliative care is provided by charities. So comparing the costs of a legal duty to the costs of something which is not a legal duty and which is primarily not funded by government is not a proper comparison and rather better merits your description of "dishonesty".
Speaking as a lefty, it's very hard to see a budget that keeps international aid at 0.5%, that keeps the two child benefit cap, that doesn't introduce a wealth tax/land value tax etc.
Raising defence spending I think I can just about get behind provided it's spent much better than the typical MoD average. I'm no expert but it seems like warfare has changed - we need drone divisions and tech manufacturing... not submarines and aircraft carriers?
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
I explicitly and repeatedly said that argument is not and should not be made.
But if you want to go down the route of analysing "costs" under the pretence of it being "scrutiny" then the "costs" should be balanced with the cost savings for an honest outlook, should it not?
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
Focus on America's enemies will stop them fighting each other
UK + Crown Dependencies + Overseas Territories + Commonwealth Realms NOT listed below
US + Territories + Freely Associated States (Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau)
Canadia
AUS + Territories + defence arrangements (Nauru, Kiribati)
NZ + Territories + defence arrangements (Samoa)
Ireland
Based on the most recent national elections in the above lands, and apportioning Electoral College electors across them on a pro rata basis, just for a bit of fun, we get:
Left-leaning Electors: 445
Right-leaning Electors: 359
Lady Protector Kamala Harris!
Remember, this is just for a bit of fun!
Cameron had the unique mix of being both a defence cutter and a Middle Eastern warmonger.
Britain is deeply integrated into a global economy and so we will be massively affected by any conflict that affects global trade, such as a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, war on the Korean peninsula, or a large-scale war in the Middle East. We also have an interest in defending democracies around the world if they come under attack from authoritarian dictatorships, so I would hope the country would not be willing to abandon democracies such as Japan or Australia to fend for themselves against China.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
Particularly if the US stops being even vaguely reliable as an ally.
Carriers are indeed, for us, pointless and a huge drain on resources.
For the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, I’m genuinely worried about the security of Europe.
Not even 3-Way Nick goes that far? And Dura knows Putin as a fascist bell end, doesn’t trust him or his motives.
Wherever the Trump administration is getting all this, it’s not from us.
I don't think the Greens committed to that, but even then their manifesto talked about the important role of NATO.
More than some US Presidents might say!
We should not have pretentions to being a global military power. We have the forces to be useful in Europe and North Atlantic, but nothing significant further afield.
Ignoring facts is the road to defeat.
This is why I think we have to spend more so that we do have the capability to do something about it.
Good bits included increasing VAT, stopping ID cards, pension reforms and bringing in some rigour to school exam grades.
Britain and its allies will wait and see for a bit. And both be charming towards Trump, and start to boost our own defences to open up other choices (and to meet him demands on defence spending). In the real world, nobody will immediately shout and scream and run away from the US.
At present I don't believe we can look much beyond Ukraine. Priorities need to be short-term; investing in maintenance so the maximum possible number of ships, aircraft and tanks are available for service. Ramping production of missiles, shells and spare parts. Thinking "We're going to war in six months" rather than "Can we build more than 6 Type 45 replacements?"
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
1. Clean energy. Develop and manufacture wind turbines and tidal generators. Wind power is great, less so when all the turbines are Danish.
2. Food production. Investing into farming and fishing and processing. Not the opposite as Labour are doing. Not crippling the whole thing as the Tories did.
But that doesn't mean defence cooperation with S Korea/Japan/Australia etc isn't in both their and our interests. And would help make such an eventuality slightly less likely.
With Europe it's even more stark. If Germany and France don't stay committed allies of the Northern European countries, then we're in a very dangerous situation over the next decade.
With unfortunate timing, I just acquired a copy of "Up Against the Wall", which is a history of the KGB in postwar, Soviet occupied Latvia.
Nationalising the RAF flight training after the botched Tory privatisation should also be a priority.
https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/05/nao_report_ukmfts_flying_training_aspire/
@MZanona
·
29m
A House Republican tells me &
@FarnoushAmiri
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
Why? Germany had huge fiscal headroom if it wanted to use it. With debt at under 40% of GDP and by far the largest economy in Europe, it could finance the defence of Ukraine and Europe without any (economic) issue. It would also stimulate manufacturing in an economy that will be hard hit by sanctions.
If Europe steps up, then Trump can't force Ukraine to accept defeat. If it doesn't, then it may have no other choice at some point next year.
The database project was a guaranteed failure from the start. Actually worse than the giant NHS IT project failures.
They would, incidentally be a massive breach of a number of modern EU laws on data protection and control of personal data.
Guess what - the proposal to introduce ID cards, again, that endlessly pops up in Whitehall, has the same database ideas. So if implemented would mean either we never align with EU data laws or the system would have to scrapped.
If, that is, any of it could actually be built.
It is now abundantly clear (even before Trump's win) that our defence needs have increased. The budget doesn't adequately reflect that imo.
(Oh and @another_richard I am very much of the left and would agree with your 4% on defence. The world has changed and we need to change with it. I think you have a caricature of a lefty in your mind.)
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/13/polymarket-fbi-shayne-coplan
Julia Ioffe
@juliaioffe
·
1h
So excited for another four years of “Republicans, Shocked and Disgusted in Private, Unanimously Vote for Trump’s Agenda Anyway” stories
https://x.com/juliaioffe/status/1856804155215503523
As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
Ukraine has managed to fend off Russia for two years with no NATO air support or boots on the ground. They took them on in exactly the kind of warfare the Russians excel at - artillery, and held them to a stalemate.
I do think we need to be clear about exactly why we are increasing spending, and what kind of battles we intend to fight, rather than spamming cash at the MOD.
Germany is at an inflection point. It could go either way
It all depends on what sort of war we might have to fight, but the Russo-Ukranian war demonstrate the importance of numbers and stocks of ammo. Currently we can field a single division and keep it equipped and supplied for a few weeks. That might be fine for Desert Storm, but would be like the BEF in WW1 or WW2 simply overwhelmed by a full scale conflict with a major power.
Members of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team are drawing up a list of military officers to be fired, potentially to include the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
https://x.com/idreesali114/status/1856805210724655564
She stumbled over words a bit at the start as she was talking too fast (probably due to nerves) but she settled into it as it went on.
Starmars comment to Nigel Farage was very funny. Who knew SKS had a sense of humour? 😂
l.
But with no disrespect to your good self the lefties who matter are those elected in July.
Starmer has the numbers in parliament to vote through a big increase in defence spending.
But does he want to and is he willing to tell the public that their taxes will be increased to pay for it ?
Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
·
1h
"Every single person that was elevated and appointed by Milley will be gone." a source tells us
"There's a very detailed list of everybody that was affiliated with Milley. And they will all be gone."
https://x.com/phildstewart/status/1856808068496974319
Assume 50,000 shells fired per day. So 10 million shells would give us 200 days of ammunition. at that volume, the shell bodies would be of the order of £5000 each. So 20 billion for the artillery, and 5 billion for the ammunition.
Note that that shell bodies (the lump of metal) are both the expensive bit, and have no shell life. You cast a shell body and it's good for a 100 years. If filled, the explosives have a shelf life of a couple of decades - depends on the fill. So a stockpile of shell bodies would not just be for Christmas - it would be for centuries.
The NATO 155mm standard has been around for generations. And it's not going anywhere.
2010 192k
2015 154k
2024 138k
So the big drop was during the coalition years.
That doesn't excuse the Conservative governments since then - though I don't remember any other party calling for increases in defence spending.
But that's all water under the bridge - the decisions now are for Starmer and Reeves to take.
Do they want to increase defence spending and are they willing to increases the taxes to pay for it ?