Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tipping point? – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,142
    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket is the most exciting sport there is, followed by tennis.
    Don't be silly!

    Football is the most exciting sport there is, followed by tennis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    TimS said:

    IHT is on death. If a farmer gifts land 7 years or before dying it’s exempt. So let’s not go overboard on this.

    However, it’s a bit of a half-baked reform that has created some collateral damage. There are various ways it could be tightened up. One would be a requirement that the landowner has their permanent residence on the farm. The other that their income is from farming, not rental from tenants. And so on.
    Agricultural Property Relief should have been kept in full for family farms of 2 generations or more, it was not difficult
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    Carnyx said:

    Quite so.

    I'd rather see the IHT reforms, and proper support for farming done separately (some perhaps in the way you suggest). Not left as a huge subsidy scheme for tax-minimisers.. If Jeremy Clarkson can come out and admit it on prime TV ... No, it does not. It hits landowners primarily.
    Landowning farmers yes
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,582
    HYUFD said:

    Landowning farmers yes
    The tax regulations for APR say landowners. Nowhere does it say farmers. I should know - I had to deal with it for a relative.

    That's the primary role of APR and its removal. Farmers are a secondary issue, a subcategory.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    HYUFD said:

    Agricultural Property Relief should have been kept in full for family farms of 2 generations or more, it was not difficult
    You'd criticise it regardless
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,582

    You'd criticise it regardless
    He's still sore about the Liberal Finance Act 1894. And the Stamps Act 1694.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,751
    Barnesian said:

    If Trump puts tariffs on UK exports to the US, we should immediately reciprocate on US imports. We should go further and boycott US goods.

    We need to persuade supermarkets to stop stocking US goods. I don't know which US goods I'll miss most. But I will be in there with the boycott.

    This is hardball.

    As I'm sure @rcs1000 will explain to you, reciprocating in a tariff war for the weaker partner is a bad move.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    Carnyx said:

    The tax regulations for APR say landowners. Nowhere does it say farmers. I should know - I had to deal with it for a relative.

    That's the primary role of APR and its removal. Farmers are a secondary issue, a subcategory.

    Most of those who own land worth over £1 million who previously could claim APR on it are farmers and it is absurd to pretend otherwise.

    Your vile class ridden attack on the food producing backbone of this nation to pursue your class war aims is beneath contempt
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    viewcode said:

    As I'm sure @rcs1000 will explain to you, reciprocating in a tariff war for the weaker partner is a bad move.
    Though China and the EU will also be reciprocating of course
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559
    Carnyx said:

    The tax regulations for APR say landowners. Nowhere does it say farmers. I should know - I had to deal with it for a relative.

    That's the primary role of APR and its removal. Farmers are a secondary issue, a subcategory.

    What does the A stand for?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,150
    a
    RobD said:

    That doesn’t really change how desirable an endorsement from Trump would be. If anything, you’d think after the last five years an endorsement would be even less desirable!


    The difference is Starmer is now PM (and on the 1/06/19 Johnson wasn't PM - Theresa May was, and it was before the first ballot of Conservative MPs on electing her replacement).

    Not sure if Starmer criticised May for being the first foreign leader to visit Trump in the White House, or for inviting him for a state visit...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,282
    kamski said:

    a



    The difference is Starmer is now PM (and on the 1/06/19 Johnson wasn't PM - Theresa May was, and it was before the first ballot of Conservative MPs on electing her replacement).

    Not sure if Starmer criticised May for being the first foreign leader to visit Trump in the White House, or for inviting him for a state visit...
    Head of pin territory here. It was an endorsement for him to be the PM.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,996

    It was but because Trump was better at self-publicizing himself as a businessman than he was at the actual business bit.

    Trump's business was the Trump brand.
    Yeah, also, pre-Apprentice Trump was something of a washed up curiosity of 80s excess. He had his most embarrassing bankruptcies and failures in the early 90s and hadn't entirely recovered his reputation. The Apprentice helped restore it and put his empire on a firmer footing with licensing deals that enabled him to greatly grow the 'Trump' imprint without risking his own money.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,720
    HYUFD said:

    Most of those who own land worth over £1 million who previously could claim APR on it are farmers and it is absurd to pretend otherwise.

    Your vile class ridden attack on the food producing backbone of this nation to pursue your class war aims is beneath contempt
    Your avatar is starting to make sense. Don't worry - when your Master dies, you might end up at Sir Keir's donkey santuary.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,419
    HYUFD said:

    Agricultural Property Relief should have been kept in full for family farms of 2 generations or more, it was not difficult
    Yes, a grandfathering provision would have worked too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    Eabhal said:

    Your avatar is starting to make sense. Don't worry - when your Master dies, you might end up at Sir Keir's donkey santuary.
    Vile comment, this despicable government supported by the likes of you have declared war on the farming community but don't worry, it will be reciprocated.

    I doubt there will be a single Labour MP left from a rural or semi rural seat after the next general election
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    HYUFD said:

    Vile comment, this despicable government supported by the likes of you have declared war on the farming community but don't worry, it will be reciprocated.

    I doubt there will be a single Labour MP left from a rural or semi rural seat after the next general election
    Tiny violins out again for the millionaires
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,419
    edited January 26
    HYUFD said:

    Vile comment, this despicable government supported by the likes of you have declared war on the farming community but don't worry, it will be reciprocated.

    I doubt there will be a single Labour MP left from a rural or semi rural seat after the next general election
    Down in East Kent I’d say they’re bothered, but not that bothered. Of the two major farmers in the valley one is still waiting to inherit land from his uncle who resolutely refuses to hand if down, and the other is relatively young so it’s not an immediate issue.

    The phenomenon of the old farmer who won’t hand down the farm until he’s physically incapable of getting in a tractor, and often not even then, is definitely a thing.

    Remember, if you own agricultural land and you give it to your children 7 years or more before death it’s totally 100% IHT free.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661
    I've been away all evening, Trump's approach to Colombia has been a huge win for the US. Our own government has a lot to learn from it and we need to, as the west, begin to get together to tie deportations to trade. Those countries who don't want to accept deportations need to be made to pay for it through tariffs and sanctions. Fuck the "normal" way of doing things. We need to deport at least half a million illegal immigrants from the UK and probably close to 5m from Europe, it's time to use the economic power of the west to get what we want. Trump is showing it can be done, who gives a fuck if a few diplomats and UN types cry about it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    TimS said:

    Down in East Kent I’d say they’re bothered, but not that bothered. Of the two major farmers in the valley one is still waiting to inherit land from his uncle who resolutely refuses to hand if down, and the other is relatively young so it’s not an immediate issue.

    The phenomenon of the old farmer who won’t hand down the farm until he’s physically incapable of getting in a tractor, and often not even then, is definitely a thing.

    Remember, if you own agricultural land and you give it to your children 7 years or more before death it’s totally 100% IHT free.
    Well round here in rural Essex they certainly are bothered, Starmer I would say is the most despised PM in history with the farming community.

    There are even talk of some suicides to use that 7 year rule because of this scumbag government
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    edited January 26

    Tiny violins out again for the millionaires
    Sod off you pathetic little twat, most farmers work all weathers and dawn to dusk for average income at best
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    HYUFD said:

    Sod off you pathetic little twat
    Even if I sod off, they’re still millionaires
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,174
    HYUFD said:

    This week's Private Eye cover '“In common with all other media organisations, we may in the past have given the impression that we thought Mr Trump was a sleazy, deranged, orange-faced man-baby who was a threat to democracy and who should be in jail rather than the White House. We now realise, in the light of his return to supreme power, that he is in fact a political colossus, the voice of sanity, a champion of liberty, a model of probity and the saviour of the Western world. He is also slim, handsome and young.”

    “We would like to apologize unreservedly for any confusion caused by our previous statements and thank President Trump for his kind invitation to give him 94 million pounds to attend his inauguration event.”

    https://www.private-eye.co.uk/current-issue
    Apologise.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,425

    This is the man who looks at North Korea and sees the potential for condo development.
    To be fair, that’s a better vision for the place than the current North Korean government has.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,886

    Even if I sod off, they’re still millionaires
    Being a millionaire ought to be something we celebrate, considering the amount of tax they contribute to the exchequer.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 97,995

    To be fair, that’s a better vision for the place than the current North Korean government has.
    Wouldn't that apply to pretty much any vision other than the eternal servitude to the God-King Kims they currently suffer under?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    Andy_JS said:

    Being a millionaire ought to be something we celebrate, considering the amount of tax they contribute to the exchequer.
    I didn’t say it was a negative thing. It just means they shouldn’t be crying about losing a tax-break.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,425
    TimS said:

    IHT is on death. If a farmer gifts land 7 years or before dying it’s exempt. So let’s not go overboard on this.

    However, it’s a bit of a half-baked reform that has created some collateral damage. There are various ways it could be tightened up. One would be a requirement that the landowner has their permanent residence on the farm. The other that their income is from farming, not rental from tenants. And so on.
    If they give the farm to the children, then there is the fun of proving no benefit from it….

    The simplest solution to IHT on farmland was to make it a charge on the estate, payable when the property is sold. Can’t use it as a tax shelter if the money is stuck in the scheme forever.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163

    I didn’t say it was a negative thing. It just means they shouldn’t be crying about losing a tax-break.
    The tax break is for farmland not holidays in the Caribbean, Ferraris and Michelin starred restaurants and Eton fees.

    The average farmer earns £24,730 a year, you are clueless on this issue

    https://uk.indeed.com/career/farmer/salaries
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,996
    MaxPB said:

    I've been away all evening, Trump's approach to Colombia has been a huge win for the US. Our own government has a lot to learn from it and we need to, as the west, begin to get together to tie deportations to trade. Those countries who don't want to accept deportations need to be made to pay for it through tariffs and sanctions. Fuck the "normal" way of doing things. We need to deport at least half a million illegal immigrants from the UK and probably close to 5m from Europe, it's time to use the economic power of the west to get what we want. Trump is showing it can be done, who gives a fuck if a few diplomats and UN types cry about it.

    Yeah, errr you haven't seen the Colombian President's response yet, have you? If I were American I'd be bulk buying coffee.

    https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3lgohxvolzc2l
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,425
    kle4 said:

    Wouldn't that apply to pretty much any vision other than the eternal servitude to the God-King Kims they currently suffer under?
    Yes, it would.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    edited January 26

    If they give the farm to the children, then there is the fun of proving no benefit from it….

    The simplest solution to IHT on farmland was to make it a charge on the estate, payable when the property is sold. Can’t use it as a tax shelter if the money is stuck in the scheme forever.
    They have 10 years interest free to pay a tax anyone else with millions of pounds worth of assets has to pay straight away, and at a higher rate even with the change. Good grief the entitlement is off the scale.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,294

    I didn’t say it was a negative thing. It just means they shouldn’t be crying about losing a tax-break.
    There are many reasons they became millionaires, one of which is enjoying little tax breaks not open to us.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    edited January 26
    HYUFD said:

    The tax break is for farmland not holidays in the Caribbean, Ferraris and Michelin starred restaurants and Eton fees.

    The average farmer earns £24,730 a year, you are clueless on this issue

    https://uk.indeed.com/career/farmer/salaries
    I would live like a king on £24,730 a year and no mortgage. Regardless, Indeed is not a good source for incomes of landowning farmers you imbecile.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,294
    HYUFD said:

    The tax break is for farmland not holidays in the Caribbean, Ferraris and Michelin starred restaurants and Eton fees.

    The average farmer earns £24,730 a year, you are clueless on this issue

    https://uk.indeed.com/career/farmer/salaries
    Is that amount the salary for a farm hand?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163

    I would live like a king on £24,730 a year and no mortgage.
    On less than average salary you wouldn't and once this tax comes in most farmers would be on minimum wage at best rates given the average farmer works 65 hours a week

    https://www.agrirs.co.uk/blog/2023/07/can-the-4-day-working-week-work-for-farmers?source=google.com
  • pancakespancakes Posts: 48
    Did Trump endorse Starmer? It rather depends. There are endorsements and there are endorsements. Trump wasn't implying that he'd have voted Labour, and he made clear that the two have ideological differences. But he was somewhere complimentary. Arguably, it was the ideal balance for Starmer. It's not as though he got dubbed "Britain Trump", so it's not the same sort of endorsement that Boris Johnson received.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163

    Is that amount the salary for a farm hand?
    No, a farmer
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    HYUFD said:

    On less than average salary you wouldn't and once this tax comes in most farmers would be on minimum wage at best rates given the average farmer works 65 hours a week

    https://www.agrirs.co.uk/blog/2023/07/can-the-4-day-working-week-work-for-farmers?source=google.com
    Poor millionaires.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    edited January 26

    Poor millionaires.
    It is scum like you who support this useless government who are the reason this Labour government is already one of the most despised in history as shown by your glee in destroying those who work all hours to provide our nations food
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    HYUFD said:

    No, a farmer
    The only farmers affected by this change are those with millions of pounds worth of assets. I repeat, millions of pounds worth of assets. You can quote income figures all you want but this is about capital assets not income. The people crying about this are literally millionaires.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    HYUFD said:

    It is scum like you who support this useless government who are the reason this Labour government is already one of the most despised in history
    I may be scum but I am not a millionaire.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,174
    pancakes said:

    Did Trump endorse Starmer? It rather depends. There are endorsements and there are endorsements. Trump wasn't implying that he'd have voted Labour, and he made clear that the two have ideological differences. But he was somewhere complimentary. Arguably, it was the ideal balance for Starmer. It's not as though he got dubbed "Britain Trump", so it's not the same sort of endorsement that Boris Johnson received.

    I agree, it's OK for Starmer. And the fact Trump offered condolences for Starmer's brother shows that Trump actually has good people working for him and is capable of some sensitivity.

    I just hope Starmer didn't promise him Scotland.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163

    The only farmers affected by this change are those with millions of pounds worth of assets. I repeat, millions of pounds worth of assets. You can quote income figures all you want but this is about capital assets not income. The people crying about this are literally millionaires.
    And it will make many of their farms unprofitable and unviable to carry on
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    HYUFD said:

    And it will make many of their farms unprofitable and unviable to carry on
    Well I guess they can live off the proceeds of their millions when they sell.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,174

    I may be scum but I am not a millionaire.
    I don’t really know why you're having this argument. Clearly it's not a very good policy, and it's going to raise an extremely tiny amount of money for a great deal of aggravation and possibly real harm. Defend the Government when it does something right.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559

    Well I guess they can live off the proceeds of their millions when they sell.
    To whom?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,150
    a

    Apologise.
    Why?

    Maybe Private Eye is following the MHRA style guide:

    Where verbs can end in -ize or -ise, use -ize forms (e.g. civilize, civilization), but be aware that some verbs must have the -ise spelling, e.g.:

    advertise, advise, apprise, chastise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, enterprise, excise, exercise, franchise, improvise, incise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise

    The British spelling of analyse and its derivatives has s and not z. Similarly, catalyse and paralyse.

    Some book-length projects otherwise following MHRA style prefer -ise to -ize. Check with your editor before making this choice, and ensure that it is followed consistently in every chapter.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661
    MJW said:

    Yeah, errr you haven't seen the Colombian President's response yet, have you? If I were American I'd be bulk buying coffee.

    https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3lgohxvolzc2l
    Tariffs will destroy the Colombian economy and their products are fungible. American buyers will simply switch to Peruvian or Bolivian alternatives that aren't tariffable.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897

    I don’t really know why you're having this argument. Clearly it's not a very good policy, and it's going to raise an extremely tiny amount of money for a great deal of aggravation and possibly real harm. Defend the Government when it does something right.
    Because I actually support this policy? I am sick and tired of people in this country constantly moaning about how bad they have it when they just don’t. If we are going to sort out our finances then everyone has to pull their weight and that includes millionaire farmers and pensioners with enough money to heat their homes. The Tories have spent the last 14 years enriching their client vote and now they are fuming Labour are not. Boo hoo.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    Driver said:

    To whom?
    If there’s no buyers then the land isn’t worth anything for IHT purposes. It’s one or the other.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,174
    Kemi gave a good interview on Camilla Tominey's GB News programme. Popped up on Youtube.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661

    Because I actually support this policy? I am sick and tired of people in this country constantly moaning about how bad they have it when they just don’t. If we are going to sort out our finances then everyone has to pull their weight and that includes millionaire farmers and pensioners with enough money to heat their homes. The Tories have spent the last 14 years enriching their client vote and now they are fuming Labour are not. Boo hoo.
    You say that without having ever been a farmer though. They have terrible conditions and few of them do it for the money. Anyone who wants to become a farmer needs money to burn because they will never really find any profit in it, at least not in the UK.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    MaxPB said:

    You say that without having ever been a farmer though. They have terrible conditions and few of them do it for the money. Anyone who wants to become a farmer needs money to burn because they will never really find any profit in it, at least not in the UK.
    They don’t do it out of the goodness of their heart, that’s romanticised and naive nonsense.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,643
    UK has first refusal on Greenland.

    Suddenly Donald is making nicey-nicey phone calls with Starmer.

    Hmmm...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,814
    MaxPB said:

    You say that without having ever been a farmer though. They have terrible conditions and few of them do it for the money. Anyone who wants to become a farmer needs money to burn because they will never really find any profit in it, at least not in the UK.
    Actually, I think most of them do do it for the money.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,814
    MaxPB said:

    Tariffs will destroy the Colombian economy and their products are fungible. American buyers will simply switch to Peruvian or Bolivian alternatives that aren't tariffable.
    Sure, but then Colombia will sell to the places which previously bought the Peruvian or Bolivian alternatives.

    (And isn't Colombia a big oil exporter these days? That's about as fungible as things get.)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661

    They don’t do it out of the goodness of their heart, that’s romanticised and naive nonsense.
    The big agribusinesses you're thinking of aren't covered by this change, a lot of them are foreign owned. This change targets family run farms run by British people and a lot of them are in it because they love to farm despite all of the terrible conditions. You really are quite clueless about it. Who should I trust about food security, Sainsbury's and Tesco or you, a bitter city dwelling Labour voter?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,643
    kamski said:

    a

    Why?

    Maybe Private Eye is following the MHRA style guide:

    Where verbs can end in -ize or -ise, use -ize forms (e.g. civilize, civilization), but be aware that some verbs must have the -ise spelling, e.g.:

    advertise, advise, apprise, chastise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, enterprise, excise, exercise, franchise, improvise, incise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise

    The British spelling of analyse and its derivatives has s and not z. Similarly, catalyse and paralyse.

    Some book-length projects otherwise following MHRA style prefer -ise to -ize. Check with your editor before making this choice, and ensure that it is followed consistently in every chapter.
    Oxford style (Harts) guide says key thing is consistency throughout a given text.

    Either is acceptable.

    ize has been used in English since 16th century.

    I am sure PB has debated this on a very regular basis.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    edited January 26

    Because I actually support this policy? I am sick and tired of people in this country constantly moaning about how bad they have it when they just don’t. If we are going to sort out our finances then everyone has to pull their weight and that includes millionaire farmers and pensioners with enough money to heat their homes. The Tories have spent the last 14 years enriching their client vote and now they are fuming Labour are not. Boo hoo.
    I am sick and tired of Labour supporters like you backing your useless government trashing farmers, pensioners and small business owners to enrich your client vote like GPs and train drivers.

    The NHS received billions upon billions in the Tory years without any real efficiency savings or changes to the way it was funded
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,070
    The EAGLES are going to the Superbowl !
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661
    rcs1000 said:

    Sure, but then Colombia will sell to the places which previously bought the Peruvian or Bolivian alternatives.

    (And isn't Colombia a big oil exporter these days? That's about as fungible as things get.)
    Isn't there just reduced aggregate demand that Colombia eats as the party facing tariffs from the first world buyer? If I'm a Colombian seller would I rather sell to a wealthy US buyer or a less wealthy south American one?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    MaxPB said:

    The big agribusinesses you're thinking of aren't covered by this change, a lot of them are foreign owned. This change targets family run farms run by British people and a lot of them are in it because they love to farm despite all of the terrible conditions. You really are quite clueless about it. Who should I trust about food security, Sainsbury's and Tesco or you, a bitter city dwelling Labour voter?
    I’m not bitter as I support the policy
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,101

    UK has first refusal on Greenland.

    Suddenly Donald is making nicey-nicey phone calls with Starmer.

    Hmmm...

    "When I heard about that deal I said to myself, 'That's a sweet deal'. The Brits back then knew how to make a deal."
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661
    HYUFD said:

    I am sick and tired of Labour supporters like you backing your useless government trashing farmers, pensioners and small business owners to enrich your client vote like GPs and train drivers.

    The NHS received billions upon billions in the Tory years without any real efficiency savings or changes to the way it was funded
    Well said, we haven't agreed on a lot in the last decade but I feel like this an issue that unites a lot of Tories and people on the centre right. Labour are destroying our nation at the altar of NHS spending. Our farmers are going to be driven out of business and be forced to sell their land to giant American agribusinesses and the NHS is going to be as bad as it ever was.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 97,995

    UK has first refusal on Greenland.

    We what now?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661

    I’m not bitter as I support the policy
    And yet you're positively gleeful to destroy family run farms and businesses because you hate them for voting to leave the EU.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,996

    Kemi gave a good interview on Camilla Tominey's GB News programme. Popped up on Youtube.

    Shame she completely screwed the pooch on LK.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,643
    HYUFD said:

    I am sick and tired of Labour supporters like you backing your useless government trashing farmers, pensioners and small business owners to enrich your client vote like GPs and train drivers.

    The NHS received billions upon billions in the Tory years without any real efficiency savings or changes to the way it was funded
    Not true. In the 'Tory Years' we had Lansley bonkers nonsense massive reorganization.

    iirc it was called 'so big, you can see it from space'.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,720
    edited January 26
    MaxPB said:

    You say that without having ever been a farmer though. They have terrible conditions and few of them do it for the money. Anyone who wants to become a farmer needs money to burn because they will never really find any profit in it, at least not in the UK.
    But there is a deliberate confusion here between farmers and farm owners. There is no doubt that farmers - those working the land - have a terrible time, and it's part of the reason we all enjoy such cheap food in the supermarkets.

    The complication is that some farmers own their land and property, and others that do not. All of them are getting shafted by a monopsony made up by Tesco et al. But the former can pass on the first £3 million of their net assets tax free. And any amount extra if they pass it on more than 7 years before they die.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,101
    kle4 said:

    We what now?
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/another-country-has-first-dibs-on-greenland-before-america-ex-ambassador/

    Denmark’s former representative to Greenland has claimed US President Donald Trump needs permission from a third country if he is to fulfill his pledge to take over the self-governing island.

    Tom Høyem, 83, who was Copenhagen’s top envoy to Greenland from 1982 to 1987, told The Sunday Times that he believes the United Kingdom has legal standing to make a claim for the arctic territory before the United States does.

    “If Trump tried to buy Greenland, he would have to ask London first,” he said, in an interview with the newspaper. “The United Kingdom demanded in 1917 that if Greenland were to be sold then the UK should have the first right to buy it.”
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    edited January 26
    MaxPB said:

    And yet you're positively gleeful to destroy family run farms and businesses because you hate them for voting to leave the EU.
    The people affected are literally millionaires.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,152
    edited January 26

    Oxford style (Harts) guide says key thing is consistency throughout a given text.

    Either is acceptable.

    ize has been used in English since 16th century.

    I am sure PB has debated this on a very regular basis.

    If you're sucking up to the US President , satirically or not, surely you use the usual American form anyway ?

    Complaining about that is just misplaced pedantry.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,282
    kle4 said:

    We what now?
    Would make sense to give it to a neutral, third country. We can then negotiate the lease for Trump’s bases.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,751
    MJW said:

    Yeah, errr you haven't seen the Colombian President's response yet, have you? If I were American I'd be bulk buying coffee.

    https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3lgohxvolzc2l
    What. The. Actual...

    I mean I'm impressed. Worried. But impressed
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    edited January 26
    MaxPB said:

    Well said, we haven't agreed on a lot in the last decade but I feel like this an issue that unites a lot of Tories and people on the centre right. Labour are destroying our nation at the altar of NHS spending. Our farmers are going to be driven out of business and be forced to sell their land to giant American agribusinesses and the NHS is going to be as bad as it ever was.
    Where some farmers are forced to sell up yes will the US agribusinesses that replace them care about the British landscape and managing it well for its long term preservation for future generations and meeting the nation's food supply needs? No they will use it solely to make a profit and if they can't do that anymore will sod off
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    MaxPB said:

    But you're not bitter? Pull the other one. It's base envy and nothing more. These people are out there feeding the nation at 1-2% annual yields on the capital values you ascribe to them. All you see is the land value and you're bitter and jealous of it, what I see is a hard working farmer up against inflation, climate change and variable market pricing looking to eke out 3% in a good year.
    I don’t care what they do with their assets. I just want them to pay the same tax as everyone else.

    I repeat, these poor downtrodden people are literally millionaires. Will anyone think of them?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,720

    I don’t care what they do with their assets. I just want them to pay the same tax as everyone else.

    I repeat, these poor downtrodden people are literally millionaires. Will anyone think of them?
    You might be interested in this: https://whoownsscotland.org.uk/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163

    Not true. In the 'Tory Years' we had Lansley bonkers nonsense massive reorganization.

    iirc it was called 'so big, you can see it from space'.
    And Cameron sacked Lansley for his trouble for proposing too much change in our health service
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,661

    I don’t care what they do with their assets. I just want them to pay the same tax as everyone else.

    I repeat, these poor downtrodden people are literally millionaires. Will anyone think of them?
    Bitterness is the defining characteristic of the left. You epitomise that.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    MaxPB said:

    Bitterness is the defining characteristic of the left. You epitomise that.
    You’ve resorted to attacking the person, not the argument. Regardless, I am interested in fairness and if you consider that bitterness then so be it, I don’t really care.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,720
    edited January 27
    MaxPB said:

    But you're not bitter? Pull the other one. It's base envy and nothing more. These people are out there feeding the nation at 1-2% annual yields on the capital values you ascribe to them. All you see is the land value and you're bitter and jealous of it, what I see is a hard working farmer up against inflation, climate change and variable market pricing looking to eke out 3% in a good year.
    You've exposed a hole in your argument. Why would the land be valuable if it delivers such a poor return and under such onerous regulations?

    Because it can be sold for property development and, increasingly, as a way to avoid tax.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,282
    Eabhal said:

    You've exposed a hole in your argument. Why would the land be valuable if it delivers such a poor return and under such onerous regulations?

    Because it can be sold for property development and, increasingly, as a way to avoid tax.
    Then tax those transactions specifically, rather than having a tax that will affect family-owned farms.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    RobD said:

    Then tax those transactions specifically, rather than having a tax that will affect family-owned farms.
    Who cares if it’s family owned? What difference does that make? Family owned assets are taxed all the time. Why are farmers so special that they should be treated differently?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,282

    Who cares if it’s family owned? What difference does that make? Family owned assets are taxed all the time. Why are farmers so special that they should be treated differently?
    Food production is a national interest, and the tax system should incentivise people to continue doing it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,886
    David Starkey makes himself unpopular with the alt-right.

    "“The Right is Wrong: Southport Was a Cock-up, Not Cover-up.” David Starkey"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUHYmmOYvfI
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    edited January 27
    RobD said:

    Food production is a national interest, and the tax system should incentivise people to continue doing it.
    Then subsidise the output of farms not the mere ownership of farmland. Then tenant farmers benefit too.

    IHT breaks just benefits landowners
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,643
    viewcode said:

    What. The. Actual...

    I mean I'm impressed. Worried. But impressed
    He loves Paul Simon.

    He's got my vote!!
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,996
    MaxPB said:

    Tariffs will destroy the Colombian economy and their products are fungible. American buyers will simply switch to Peruvian or Bolivian alternatives that aren't tariffable.
    Sure, consumers - or rather retailers - can switch - but that will increase demand and thus prices on those. There's already a global coffee shortage due to drought in Brazil.

    Overall, yes, it's a much bigger problem for Colombia. But given one of Trump's big promises is halting or even at one point claiming he'd reverse price rises that badly hit Biden/Harris, he may be oddly vulnerable if countries really are prepared to call his bluff.

    Canada looks like it may if he follows through on his tariff through there - the Canadian press appears to back retaliation over capitulation. Gas price rises due to tariffs would be pretty disastrous for Trump.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,152
    Some context for tonight's breathless Trump fans.

    Colombia has accepted hundreds of deportation flights in the past years. It rejected two flights using military planes, but agreed to continue taking flights using normal ICE planes.

    In response, the Trump administration has done the equivalent of punching them in the face.

    https://x.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1883589385049997527
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,282

    Then subsidise the output of farms not the act of owning farmland. Then tenant farmers benefit too.
    Yes, that is part of it, too. However, if you introduce taxes that mean continued ownership of the land becomes more expensive, even over the long term, you will end up concentrating the ownership of land in an even smaller group of people.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,996
    Andy_JS said:

    David Starkey makes himself unpopular with the alt-right.

    "“The Right is Wrong: Southport Was a Cock-up, Not Cover-up.” David Starkey"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUHYmmOYvfI

    When parts of the right have got too bonkers for David Starkey, you know some have gone off the end of the pier.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,720
    Eabhal said:

    You might be interested in this: https://whoownsscotland.org.uk/
    Turns out most of the farms round me are owned by various Dukes and Earls, a series of opaque offshore trusts, the King, the council, the MoD, Forestry Commission, a Colonel, a Baronet, and a firm that looks like a golf company. Now that is interesting - looks like that field is not long for farming.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,886

    He loves Paul Simon.

    He's got my vote!!
    Am I the only person who thinks it was better when presidents didn't insult each other on a public forum? It cannot set a good example for everyone else.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,996
    HYUFD said:

    And Cameron sacked Lansley for his trouble for proposing too much change in our health service
    Wasn't he sacked because the changes he proposed were a complete mess that even the Tories had to admit did not achieve what they were supposed to?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,163
    Eabhal said:

    You've exposed a hole in your argument. Why would the land be valuable if it delivers such a poor return and under such onerous regulations?

    Because it can be sold for property development and, increasingly, as a way to avoid tax.
    Farms which have been farmed by the same family for generations are not going to be sold for property development unless iHT is so high it makes them unviable and unprofitable to continue farming on
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,897
    RobD said:

    Yes, that is part of it, too. However, if you introduce taxes that mean continued ownership of the land becomes more expensive, even over the long term, you will end up concentrating the ownership of land in an even smaller group of people.
    RobD said:

    Yes, that is part of it, too. However, if you introduce taxes that mean continued ownership of the land becomes more expensive, even over the long term, you will end up concentrating the ownership of land in an even smaller group of people.
    Not if it’s offset by increased operating profits through other subsidies or tax policies, it does not. Contrary to popular belief I am a big supporter of British agriculture, in my own small way. I go out of my way to buy British grown or reared food, at a price premium usually. I just fundamentally don’t agree with policies that reward (by way of a tax exemption) asset rich people for simply being asset rich in the first place.
This discussion has been closed.