The politics of envy – politicalbetting.com

System · June 25

The politics of envy – politicalbetting.com

Most Britons (56%) think increasing taxes on the super-rich would raise more money than cutting them (16%)But even if hiking taxes on the super-rich LOST money, Britons would still prefer to do it than not by 42% to 32%Results: yougov.co.uk/topics/polit… / yougov.co.uk/topics/polit…

Read the full story here

maaarsh · June 25

That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.

Nigelb · June 25

Even if this was good tactics by Rutte (which it really is not) it’s devastating for European leaders to speak like this. The lack of self-respect and confidence that it telegraphs is demoralising domestically and empowers Europe’s enemies. It’s the language of defeat.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1937842538884256179

Rutte has become like some sort of European Maureen Dowd. He gained a reputation, based on flimsy evidence, of being a "Trump whisperer" during the first Trump administration, and has morphed into an apologist for the mad old bastard.

In Rutte's case, delivered from a posture of abject cringe.

Andy_JS · June 25

They probably don't care if they leave the country either, even if it makes the country poorer.

Sunil_Prasannan · June 25

viewcode said:

Theuniondivvie said:
Lol, ‘gated communities’!
Finally ‘food pantries’ has to give up its shit euphemism crown.

https://x.com/alanrmacleod/status/1937632825181896813?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Although the term "concentration camps" was repurposed to describe the Nazi death camps and became synonymous with them, the term was originally used to describe the camps used by the British to corral/imprison civilians in the Boer War at the town/village level. Whilst the intent was to prevent them giving succor to the enemy, the resultant civilian deaths from hunger and disease was seen as an added bonus. Whether this usage is appropriate for use in Gaza is an exercise I will leave to the reader.

Nope, it originated with the Spanish in Cuba, during an insurrection there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcentration_policy

Nigelb · June 25

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.

The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?

JosiasJessop · June 25

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.

You can choose to try to equalise up, by helping the poor make themselves richer, or equalise down, by making the rich much poorer.

The former is much harder than the latter. In truth, neither works alone.

Theuniondivvie · June 25

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?

Far too modest to describe himself as super.

maaarsh · June 25

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?

The voters of 2 parties appear to be answering the questions from a perspective of the national good and so their answer swings significantly if the policy is stated to be counter productive. Tbe other 2 parties voters proudly cut their noses off.

Nigelb · June 25

Nigelb said:
Even if this was good tactics by Rutte (which it really is not) it’s devastating for European leaders to speak like this. The lack of self-respect and confidence that it telegraphs is demoralising domestically and empowers Europe’s enemies. It’s the language of defeat.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1937842538884256179

Rutte has become like some sort of European Maureen Dowd. He gained a reputation, based on flimsy evidence, of being a "Trump whisperer" during the first Trump administration, and has morphed into an apologist for the mad old bastard.

In Rutte's case, delivered from a posture of abject cringe.

He should pay more attention to this kind of thing.

Q: "Can you give us a preview of what you'll say to Zelensky?"

Trump: " We'll discuss his difficulty. He's got a little difficulty, Zelensky. I assume we'll talk about Ukraine... I've spoken to Putin a lot and he actually was very nice."
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1937829896723767392

maaarsh · June 25

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?

And it really isn't hypothetical, the Chancellor is plainly acting on this impulse.

Battlebus · June 25

I envy politicians who talk sh** and get paid well for it. If only I could be that shameless.

TheScreamingEagles · June 25

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?

Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'

Mortimer · June 25

The second question is utterly damning for the supporters of LD and Lab.....

maaarsh · June 25

Mortimer said:
The second question is utterly damning for the supporters of LD and Lab.....

You're going to get our Bot farm shut down if you don't start writing your own material

HYUFD · June 25

To be honest you would see similar polls across the western world, even American voters would mostly raise tax on the super rich provided their taxes didn't rise. Though at least Tory and Reform voters wouldn't raise taxes on the super rich if the evidence was the Laffer curve was true and that would hit economic growth.

The only places where you would see clear polling against rising taxes on the super rich would be tax havens like Monaco ad Switzerland and the Bahamas and the likes of Singapore and Dubai with lots of wealthy ex pats like perhaps a future TSE

HYUFD · June 25

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'

As I believe was an ex poster of this Parish

Nigelb · June 25

The US military sends Barty (and Netenyahu) a message.

"Security in #Syria will translate into security for the United States... I'm optimistic for the future... stability in #Syria hinges upon the current leader (Ahmad al-Sharaa) remaining in place & that's very important for us."

- VADM Cooper, incoming @CENTCOM Commander
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1937841027487760462

HYUFD · June 25

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.

Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are only about half for in that scenario

carnforth · June 25

"Make the country less well-off financially because of values"

Oh no! Values!

Nigelb · June 25

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'

That's certainly a hoary old gag.

GarethoftheVale2 · June 25

Had a look at the detail of that MRP and some of the results are eye opening:

-Lab facing complete wipe out in Birmingham (guess the bin strike doesn't help).
-Reform picking up seats like Luton N and Slough suggesting they are getting some votes from working class ethnic minority voters (both places voted for Brexit)
- Reform 24 points ahead in Yvette Cooper's seat
- Reform only 2 points behind in Bootle
- Reform winning Birmingham Ladywood with only 23% of the vote (and Lab 3rd behind Gaza Indie)

Mexicanpete · June 25

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario

Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

GarethoftheVale2 · June 25

Rayner, Miliband and Streeting goners as well.

Starmer only getting 27% (but winning against a very divided opposition)

Nigelb · June 25

maaarsh said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
The voters of 2 parties appear to be answering the questions from a perspective of the national good and so their answer swings significantly if the policy is stated to be counter productive. Tbe other 2 parties voters proudly cut their noses off.

Or they don't believe that is what they would be doing.

The other way of looking at it is that the number of them opposing tax rises well over doubles when the hypothetical is asked.

I still think it's a poor way to reveal actual preferences.

I would prefer to see for comparison the results of a poll which asked something along the lines of "this research clearly demonstrates that raising taxes on the super rich would actually reduce the amount of tax raises, because... etc.
Would you still support raising those taxes ?"

maaarsh · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.

TOPPING · June 25

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'
As I believe was an ex poster of this Parish

When you call Hoare's they answer the phone: Hello Mr X.

Which was a lot more impressive 5-10 years ago than it is today with number recognition.

Eabhal · June 25

Real disposable income is at an all time high, rates of absolute poverty fell consistently from 2008 until 2022. But inequality matters to people. We develop a sense of fairness and injustice before primary school. It's not all about your bank balance.

As much as we don't like people freeloading on benefits or coming across on small boats and claiming asylum, we also don't like it when most of the nation's income accrues to a wealthy few. The top 10% pay 60% of income taxes - there isn't a better illustration of how distorted our income distribution has become.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 25

Where is Leon when we need him to explain that the second question demonstrates the importance of perceived fairness?

When life is unfair, there is a danger people will look to extremes in any direction, and that includes tax just as much as fare dodgers (literally) getting a free ride and flagrant shoplifting as well as small boats and non-deported rapists.

Before politicians write off complaints as racism or the politics of envy, they ought to check fairness first.

HYUFD · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

No, I have never advocated removing benefits from those so disabled they are incapable of work or for able bodied when high unemployment for example just for the principle of poor hatred

FF43 · June 25

If nationality is a product, and by the way these super rich have no more commitment to the UK than to their brand of toothpaste, you would want to value your product as high as you can.

So make the UK an attractive place to live in - quality education, low crime, strong environmental protections etc - and tax to the maximum you can get away with.

JosiasJessop · June 25

Andy_JS said:
They probably don't care if they leave the country either, even if it makes the country poorer.

Ah, the rich "plastic patriots"

"Do what we want or we'll skream and skream and run away."

Yes, many of them will. But if they do, they've got no effing right to screech about the quality of services in the UK. The sad thing is, they seem to want it both ways: to pay eff-all tax, and yet not have to see any poor people. They don't *mind* poor people; it's just that they should remain out of sight...

williamglenn · June 25

FF43 said:
If nationality is a product, and by the way these super rich have no more commitment to the UK than to their brand of toothpaste, you would want to value your product as high as you can.

So make the UK an attractive place to live in - quality education, low crime, strong environmental protections etc - and tax to the maximum you can get away with.

We can't do that without a Singaporean approach to criminality.

Selebian · June 25

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'

"My salary goes straight to Hoares every payday"?

Mexicanpete · June 25

maaarsh said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.

My point was specifically about HY's class warfare hypocrisy. He fights harder for his perceived "class" than Scargill ever did for the peasantry.

I dispute your point that educating "Tim Nice But Dim" or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson because of their parental wealth, whilst being wholly unemployable in any role that wasn't organised on their behalf by their entitled parents, is more appropriate and beneficial to the nation than a gifted son or daughter of a street cleaner having the opportunity to become Governor of the Bank of England or DPP.

turbotubbs · June 25

Sunil_Prasannan said:

viewcode said:

Theuniondivvie said:
Lol, ‘gated communities’!
Finally ‘food pantries’ has to give up its shit euphemism crown.

https://x.com/alanrmacleod/status/1937632825181896813?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Although the term "concentration camps" was repurposed to describe the Nazi death camps and became synonymous with them, the term was originally used to describe the camps used by the British to corral/imprison civilians in the Boer War at the town/village level. Whilst the intent was to prevent them giving succor to the enemy, the resultant civilian deaths from hunger and disease was seen as an added bonus. Whether this usage is appropriate for use in Gaza is an exercise I will leave to the reader.
Nope, it originated with the Spanish in Cuba, during an insurrection there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcentration_policy

Should also discriminate between the Nazi extermination camps (e.g. Sobibor, Treblinka etc) and the KL (concentration camps (e.g. Dachau, Mauthausen). Only Auschwitz served as both.

And yes, I have finally finished ready KL – A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps by Nikolas Wachsmann. A truly horrifying book that should be mandated reading for everyone, especially those who are flirting with Reform.

Mexicanpete · June 25

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

No, I have never advocated removing benefits from those so disabled they are incapable of work or for able bodied when high unemployment for example just for the principle of poor hatred

I didn't know I'd accused you of removing poor people's benefits. That's the job of a Labour Government surely.

Mexicanpete · June 25

Anyone listening to the rambling nonsense currently coming out of the Netherlands?

Nigelb · June 25

turbotubbs said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

viewcode said:

Theuniondivvie said:
Lol, ‘gated communities’!
Finally ‘food pantries’ has to give up its shit euphemism crown.

https://x.com/alanrmacleod/status/1937632825181896813?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Although the term "concentration camps" was repurposed to describe the Nazi death camps and became synonymous with them, the term was originally used to describe the camps used by the British to corral/imprison civilians in the Boer War at the town/village level. Whilst the intent was to prevent them giving succor to the enemy, the resultant civilian deaths from hunger and disease was seen as an added bonus. Whether this usage is appropriate for use in Gaza is an exercise I will leave to the reader.
Nope, it originated with the Spanish in Cuba, during an insurrection there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcentration_policy
Should also discriminate between the Nazi extermination camps (e.g. Sobibor, Treblinka etc) and the KL (concentration camps (e.g. Dachau, Mauthausen). Only Auschwitz served as both.

And yes, I have finally finished ready KL – A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps by Nikolas Wachsmann. A truly horrifying book that should be mandated reading for everyone, especially those who are flirting with Reform.

One is being built in Florida.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/us/politics/florida-alligator-alcatraz-migrant-detention-center.html

turbotubbs · June 25

Eabhal said:
Real disposable income is at an all time high, rates of absolute poverty fell consistently from 2008 until 2022. But inequality matters to people. We develop a sense of fairness and injustice before primary school. It's not all about your bank balance.

As much as we don't like people freeloading on benefits or coming across on small boats and claiming asylum, we also don't like it when most of the nation's income accrues to a wealthy few. The top 10% pay 60% of income taxes - there isn't a better illustration of how distorted our income distribution has become.

While I think this is true to an extent, most people also benchmark against their peers. So if your friend group can afford two holidays abroad each year and seems to be eating out all the time, and you cannot, you will feel poorer. I don't think most people actually care about the super rich that much.

Sunil_Prasannan · June 25

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

Yeah, especially after the Nigel Farage incident!

HYUFD · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

maaarsh said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.
My point was specifically about HY's class warfare hypocrisy. He fights harder for his perceived "class" than Scargill ever did for the peasantry.

I dispute your point that educating "Tim Nice But Dim" or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson because of their parental wealth, whilst being wholly unemployable in any role that wasn't organised on their behalf by their entitled parents, is more appropriate and beneficial to the nation than a gifted son or daughter of a street cleaner having the opportunity to become Governor of the Bank of England or DPP.

Plenty did when we had more grammar schools, even 'son of a toolmaker' Sir Keir went to a grammar school for most of his secondary education and then DPP head and PM

MarqueeMark · June 25

Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

maaarsh said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.
My point was specifically about HY's class warfare hypocrisy. He fights harder for his perceived "class" than Scargill ever did for the peasantry.

I dispute your point that educating "Tim Nice But Dim" or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson because of their parental wealth, whilst being wholly unemployable in any role that wasn't organised on their behalf by their entitled parents, is more appropriate and beneficial to the nation than a gifted son or daughter of a street cleaner having the opportunity to become Governor of the Bank of England or DPP.

Oh, hold on. Boris. To revisit the last thread and the late Queen's memorial, the inscription should say, at least I won't have that idiot organising my funeral.

Dopermean · June 25

It's not as irrational as it seems, there are studies showing that having super-rich residents increases the cost of living for ordinary people.
Then there's the political lobbying and donations to further the interests of the super-rich over ordinary people.

turbotubbs · June 25

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.

Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.

Cookie · June 25

Mexicanpete said:
Anyone listening to the rambling nonsense currently coming out of the Netherlands?

Go on...?

Malmesbury · June 25

JosiasJessop said:

Andy_JS said:
They probably don't care if they leave the country either, even if it makes the country poorer.
Ah, the rich "plastic patriots"

"Do what we want or we'll skream and skream and run away."

Yes, many of them will. But if they do, they've got no effing right to screech about the quality of services in the UK. The sad thing is, they seem to want it both ways: to pay eff-all tax, and yet not have to see any poor people. They don't *mind* poor people; it's just that they should remain out of sight...

Quite a lot of rich people in the U.K. are immigrants. To them, the quality of life vs tax burden is quite transactional.

It also goes down the scale. Why should my Indian colleague (in the country 4 years) stay in London vs move to Berlin?

It’s almost as if saying that there is no such thing as (or it’s evil there is) a British identity has a downside.

JosiasJessop · June 25

Nigelb said:
The US military sends Barty (and Netenyahu) a message.

"Security in #Syria will translate into security for the United States... I'm optimistic for the future... stability in #Syria hinges upon the current leader (Ahmad al-Sharaa) remaining in place & that's very important for us."

- VADM Cooper, incoming @CENTCOM Commander
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1937841027487760462

That's pretty much in line with my own thinking, despite al-Sharaa's history.

Assad left 90% of Syrians living below the poverty line, and a country split by civil war. al-Sharaa is the best opportunity to improve things.

boulay · June 25

Mexicanpete said:
Anyone listening to the rambling nonsense currently coming out of the Netherlands?

They’re covering The Nijmegen Marches on Radio 5 Live now?

DecrepiterJohnL · June 25

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.

Being Black was not why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Not being George W Bush is why he got it.

stodge · June 25

Afternoon all

Sometimes you get your beliefs and views challenged head on and last evening, at a local meeting, I had the rare opportunity to meet and have a prolonged 1-to-1 conversation with a property developer or rather a senior planner at one of the big developers.

They are looking to redevelop a brownfield site near us (the site has a gasholder, electricity pylons and high pressure gas pipes running across it and is designated Metropolitan Open Land (MoL) in the Newham Local Plan).

The two big problems from the developer side were first the cost of decontamination. Removing a foot of topsoil across a 22 acre site isn't cheap or easy - deconstructing and cleaning a gasholder isn't easy or cheap with decades of accumulated and highly toxic sludge at the bottom.

On top of that, the second problem was the cost of construction - the cost of labour and materials had spiked in the past 3-5 years but that was exacerbated by Section 106 payments, community infrastructure levy payments and the carbon off-set tax. In other words, London was, in his view, the most expensive place in the world to build.

All that was further compounded by the fact flats and houses weren't being sold at the prices developers needed to make even a small profit so the argument very often came down to economics rather than NIMBY-ism. Could the site be developed - was it viable as a development opportunity?

The paradox, he said, was that the places where people most needed houses and the places most people wanted to live were the ones where the costs of construction were at their highest - specifically, Inner London brownfield sites. Newham isn't replete with Green Belt - the MoL was meant to be a form of urban green belt to provide some green space and prevent complete urban sprawl.

He also told me (and I don't know if it's true) in Q1 in London, 4,000 new dwellings were started and 3,000 completed but the requirement is 88,000 new dwellings per year which in his view was wholly unachievable.

I left the meeting frustrated and depressed - the housing problem has been widely portrayed as a struggle between developers and locals but it's nothing like that - it's a series of economic paradoxes which make sensible development economically unviable and force developers into over-dense applications simply in order to make the sums add up.

It may be there are special issues with brownfield and contaminated sites and the costs of their remediation which need to be mitigated "somehow" (and I've no idea how) but the fact the scarcity of alternatives mean such sites now have to be considered speaks volumes as to the size of the problems and the paucity of other solutions.

Mexicanpete · June 25

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

maaarsh said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.
My point was specifically about HY's class warfare hypocrisy. He fights harder for his perceived "class" than Scargill ever did for the peasantry.

I dispute your point that educating "Tim Nice But Dim" or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson because of their parental wealth, whilst being wholly unemployable in any role that wasn't organised on their behalf by their entitled parents, is more appropriate and beneficial to the nation than a gifted son or daughter of a street cleaner having the opportunity to become Governor of the Bank of England or DPP.
Plenty did when we had more grammar schools, even 'son of a toolmaker' Sir Keir went to a grammar school for most of his secondary education and then DPP head and PM

Grammar schools brought with them their own intrinsic unfairness.

What about a fully funded universal education system like Mrs Thatcher promoted in the 1970s when as Education Minister she replaced Grammar Schools with top quality, meritocratic Comprehensives?

Malmesbury · June 25

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.
Yeah, especially after the Nigel Farage incident!

They were actually climbing back out of the pit - when they were bought by NatWest, any clown could get an account. They were steadily getting rid of the dross.

Then they lost a truth telling competition with Nigel Fucking Farage.

MarqueeMark · June 25

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.

Debased as it might be, hasn't stopped Trump being desperate to have on on his mantlepiece.

The Committee should drop him a line. "If you want one that badly - back Ukraine..."

williamglenn · June 25

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Being Black was not why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Not being George W Bush is why he got it.

You think they would have given it to John McCain if he'd become President?

JosiasJessop · June 25

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Andy_JS said:
They probably don't care if they leave the country either, even if it makes the country poorer.
Ah, the rich "plastic patriots"

"Do what we want or we'll skream and skream and run away."

Yes, many of them will. But if they do, they've got no effing right to screech about the quality of services in the UK. The sad thing is, they seem to want it both ways: to pay eff-all tax, and yet not have to see any poor people. They don't *mind* poor people; it's just that they should remain out of sight...
Quite a lot of rich people in the U.K. are immigrants. To them, the quality of life vs tax burden is quite transactional.

It also goes down the scale. Why should my Indian colleague (in the country 4 years) stay in London vs move to Berlin?

It’s almost as if saying that there is no such thing as (or it’s evil there is) a British identity has a downside.

Indeed. We need to attract people. But as ever, it is a balance - and my point is about plastic patriots: people who talk about their love of the country, but threaten to move away the moment something goes against them. And who, almost always, use public services. And often comment from abroad anyway...

Mexicanpete · June 25

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Mexicanpete said:

maaarsh said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.
My point was specifically about HY's class warfare hypocrisy. He fights harder for his perceived "class" than Scargill ever did for the peasantry.

I dispute your point that educating "Tim Nice But Dim" or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson because of their parental wealth, whilst being wholly unemployable in any role that wasn't organised on their behalf by their entitled parents, is more appropriate and beneficial to the nation than a gifted son or daughter of a street cleaner having the opportunity to become Governor of the Bank of England or DPP.
Oh, hold on. Boris. To revisit the last thread and the late Queen's memorial, the inscription should say, at least I won't have that idiot organising my funeral.

"Has anyone been to Peppa Pig World..."

Yes, the good Lady held on until that eventuality was no longer an option. And hats off to her.

On the other hand the PTSD caused to state educated Elizabeth Truss on being bestowed with such a high risk endeavour was sad to behold.

turbotubbs · June 25

MarqueeMark said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Debased as it might be, hasn't stopped Trump being desperate to have on on his mantlepiece.

The Committee should drop him a line. "If you want one that badly - back Ukraine..."

Could Trump not just swap orange face paint for a darker shade?

FrancisUrquhart · June 25

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.

The reasoning they gave is just weird,

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama in 2009 failed to achieve what the committee hoped it would, its ex-secretary has said. Geir Lundestad told the AP news agency that the committee hoped the award would strengthen Mr Obama.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34277960

He had just won the elected position of most powerful man in the world by a significant margin on a confident platform of Change.

BartholomewRoberts · June 25

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'
As I believe was an ex poster of this Parish
When you call Hoare's they answer the phone: Hello Mr X.

Which was a lot more impressive 5-10 years ago than it is today with number recognition.

Sounds like a potential violation of GDPR.

MarqueeMark · June 25

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Debased as it might be, hasn't stopped Trump being desperate to have on on his mantlepiece.

The Committee should drop him a line. "If you want one that badly - back Ukraine..."
Could Trump not just swap orange face paint for a darker shade?

That would turn him into an Oscar...

BartholomewRoberts · June 25

Nigelb said:
The US military sends Barty (and Netenyahu) a message.

"Security in #Syria will translate into security for the United States... I'm optimistic for the future... stability in #Syria hinges upon the current leader (Ahmad al-Sharaa) remaining in place & that's very important for us."

- VADM Cooper, incoming @CENTCOM Commander
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1937841027487760462

Are you suggesting that because this particular US administration says something it must be true?

MarqueeMark · June 25

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Being Black was not why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Not being George W Bush is why he got it.

Ah yes, Dubya. Harks back to a gentler age of American Idiot.

Scary to think what Trump and Hegseth would have done, confronted by 9/11...

BartholomewRoberts · June 25

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Debased as it might be, hasn't stopped Trump being desperate to have on on his mantlepiece.

The Committee should drop him a line. "If you want one that badly - back Ukraine..."
Could Trump not just swap orange face paint for a darker shade?

He'd need to swap the -mp in his name for -deau.

Mexicanpete · June 25

williamglenn said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Being Black was not why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Not being George W Bush is why he got it.
You think they would have given it to John McCain if he'd become President?

They might have given it to John McClane had he become President. Yippee ki yay!

FrancisUrquhart · June 25

An asylum seeker from Tajikistan has been allowed to stay in the UK because he would have had to shave his beard off if he was deported.

The unnamed man won an appeal after arguing that he could be tortured and have his facial hair forcibly removed if he was sent back home. The Home Office tried to deport him back to the Central Asian state, but an asylum court has now ruled that he may be entitled to international protection in the UK because of his beard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/migrant-can-stay-in-uk-because-he-does-not-want-to-shave/

Is there some massive jackpot prize for who can come up with the most ridiculous reason not to deport somebody?

TOPPING · June 25

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'
As I believe was an ex poster of this Parish
When you call Hoare's they answer the phone: Hello Mr X.

Which was a lot more impressive 5-10 years ago than it is today with number recognition.
Sounds like a potential violation of GDPR.

They knew each customer well enough that they recognised their voice.

MarqueeMark · June 25

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
The second question is a hypothetical, and the answers to it surely conditioned by the stated belief in the answer to the first question.

If two questions were asked in sequence, which is implied by the questions, then it's a very poor way of polling on the second one.

As an aside, is TSE already one of the "Super Rich" ?
Well I used to bank at Coutts which isn't as impressive as it used to be.

I am specifically enjoined from banking with C. Hoare & Co because I would keep on telling the world 'my bankers are Hoares'
As I believe was an ex poster of this Parish
When you call Hoare's they answer the phone: Hello Mr X.

Which was a lot more impressive 5-10 years ago than it is today with number recognition.
Sounds like a potential violation of GDPR.

Sounds like telephone intercepts of the GDR!

FrancisUrquhart · June 25

Some interesting charts in the YouGov poll,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/25/working-class-voters-abandon-labour-for-reform-poll/

williamglenn · June 25

FrancisUrquhart said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
The reasoning they gave is just weird,

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama in 2009 failed to achieve what the committee hoped it would, its ex-secretary has said. Geir Lundestad told the AP news agency that the committee hoped the award would strengthen Mr Obama.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34277960

He had just won the elected position of most powerful man in the world by a significant margin on a confident platform of Change.

Specifically they were impressed by his appeasement of Russia and thought he would rid the world of nuclear weapons. During the campaign, Obama said, "instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert".

Eabhal · June 25

FrancisUrquhart said:
An asylum seeker from Tajikistan has been allowed to stay in the UK because he would have had to shave his beard off if he was deported.

The unnamed man won an appeal after arguing that he could be tortured and have his facial hair forcibly removed if he was sent back home. The Home Office tried to deport him back to the Central Asian state, but an asylum court has now ruled that he may be entitled to international protection in the UK because of his beard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/migrant-can-stay-in-uk-because-he-does-not-want-to-shave/

Is there some massive jackpot prize for who can come up with the most ridiculous reason not to deport somebody?

What's the chance it was the "torture" bit that was important?

boulay · June 25

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Andy_JS said:
They probably don't care if they leave the country either, even if it makes the country poorer.
Ah, the rich "plastic patriots"

"Do what we want or we'll skream and skream and run away."

Yes, many of them will. But if they do, they've got no effing right to screech about the quality of services in the UK. The sad thing is, they seem to want it both ways: to pay eff-all tax, and yet not have to see any poor people. They don't *mind* poor people; it's just that they should remain out of sight...
Quite a lot of rich people in the U.K. are immigrants. To them, the quality of life vs tax burden is quite transactional.

It also goes down the scale. Why should my Indian colleague (in the country 4 years) stay in London vs move to Berlin?

It’s almost as if saying that there is no such thing as (or it’s evil there is) a British identity has a downside.
Indeed. We need to attract people. But as ever, it is a balance - and my point is about plastic patriots: people who talk about their love of the country, but threaten to move away the moment something goes against them. And who, almost always, use public services. And often comment from abroad anyway...

Just to clarify, did your wife love Turkey, did she move away when she found a better option for her life and did she use Turkish public services?

HYUFD · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

maaarsh said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.
My point was specifically about HY's class warfare hypocrisy. He fights harder for his perceived "class" than Scargill ever did for the peasantry.

I dispute your point that educating "Tim Nice But Dim" or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson because of their parental wealth, whilst being wholly unemployable in any role that wasn't organised on their behalf by their entitled parents, is more appropriate and beneficial to the nation than a gifted son or daughter of a street cleaner having the opportunity to become Governor of the Bank of England or DPP.
Plenty did when we had more grammar schools, even 'son of a toolmaker' Sir Keir went to a grammar school for most of his secondary education and then DPP head and PM
Grammar schools brought with them their own intrinsic unfairness.

What about a fully funded universal education system like Mrs Thatcher promoted in the 1970s when as Education Minister she replaced Grammar Schools with top quality, meritocratic Comprehensives?

By definition doesn't exist, as comprehensives are one size fits all.

Even the outstanding rated Comprehensives tend to do worse in terms of exam results and Oxbridge entry than grammar schools. While comprehensives in seaside towns or ex industrial towns often get well below average results with no excellent school in the area offering a ladder up.

Thatcher of course only did not block local authorities going comp (mainly Labour ones) on Heath's orders, as PM there were more pupils at grammars in 1997 when the Tories left office than there had been in 1979 when Thatcher got in

FrancisUrquhart · June 25

Emily Eavis, the festival’s organiser, said: “Everyone is welcome here,”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/kneecap-welcome-at-glastonbury-despite-calls-for-ban/

I wonder if somebody went with "I heart Tommy Robinson" t-shirt they would be welcome?

Theuniondivvie · June 25

PB righties mumping on about Obama’s Nobel? Has this ever happened before, other than the previous 500+ times?

Eabhal · June 25

stodge said:
Afternoon all

Sometimes you get your beliefs and views challenged head on and last evening, at a local meeting, I had the rare opportunity to meet and have a prolonged 1-to-1 conversation with a property developer or rather a senior planner at one of the big developers.

They are looking to redevelop a brownfield site near us (the site has a gasholder, electricity pylons and high pressure gas pipes running across it and is designated Metropolitan Open Land (MoL) in the Newham Local Plan).

The two big problems from the developer side were first the cost of decontamination. Removing a foot of topsoil across a 22 acre site isn't cheap or easy - deconstructing and cleaning a gasholder isn't easy or cheap with decades of accumulated and highly toxic sludge at the bottom.

On top of that, the second problem was the cost of construction - the cost of labour and materials had spiked in the past 3-5 years but that was exacerbated by Section 106 payments, community infrastructure levy payments and the carbon off-set tax. In other words, London was, in his view, the most expensive place in the world to build.

All that was further compounded by the fact flats and houses weren't being sold at the prices developers needed to make even a small profit so the argument very often came down to economics rather than NIMBY-ism. Could the site be developed - was it viable as a development opportunity?

The paradox, he said, was that the places where people most needed houses and the places most people wanted to live were the ones where the costs of construction were at their highest - specifically, Inner London brownfield sites. Newham isn't replete with Green Belt - the MoL was meant to be a form of urban green belt to provide some green space and prevent complete urban sprawl.

He also told me (and I don't know if it's true) in Q1 in London, 4,000 new dwellings were started and 3,000 completed but the requirement is 88,000 new dwellings per year which in his view was wholly unachievable.

I left the meeting frustrated and depressed - the housing problem has been widely portrayed as a struggle between developers and locals but it's nothing like that - it's a series of economic paradoxes which make sensible development economically unviable and force developers into over-dense applications simply in order to make the sums add up.

It may be there are special issues with brownfield and contaminated sites and the costs of their remediation which need to be mitigated "somehow" (and I've no idea how) but the fact the scarcity of alternatives mean such sites now have to be considered speaks volumes as to the size of the problems and the paucity of other solutions.

Perhaps why the centre of Glasgow remains a giant brownfield site, even as we pave over the countryside in the suburbs.

Mexicanpete · June 25

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Being Black was not why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Not being George W Bush is why he got it.
Ah yes, Dubya. Harks back to a gentler age of American Idiot.

Ah yes, "American Idiot".

Did Billie Joe Armstrong correctly predict a dystopian future or did life imitate art?

Leon · June 25

This is indeed depressing polling

But look who “support” the second option (“tax them even if it makes us poorer”). Not reform or Tory voters, it’s Labour and Lib Dems. They are snivelling inadequate tiny dicked morons - bitterly jealous of success because they are such losers. Happy to impoverish the country as long as dynamic people suffer

UGH

Theuniondivvie · June 25

FrancisUrquhart said:
Emily Eavis, the festival’s organiser, said: “Everyone is welcome here,”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/kneecap-welcome-at-glastonbury-despite-calls-for-ban/

I wonder if somebody went with "I heart Tommy Robinson" t-shirt they would be welcome?

Leon’s getting on a bit for Glasto…

MarqueeMark · June 25

FrancisUrquhart said:
Some interesting charts in the YouGov poll,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/25/working-class-voters-abandon-labour-for-reform-poll/

Wow. Cost of living and NHS nearly twice as important to Labour --> Reform switchers as immigration.

DecrepiterJohnL · June 25

williamglenn said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Being Black was not why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Not being George W Bush is why he got it.
You think they would have given it to John McCain if he'd become President?

Two words: Iraq.

stodge · June 25

I wonder if Rutte's comments will have any impact on the Dutch GE which takes place later this year (October 29th).

Rutte was Dutch PM for 14 years (imagine David Cameron serving as UK PM from May 2010 to July 2024) until being replaced by the Schoof caretaker cabinet following the November 2023 GE and the advance of Geert Wilders PVV and the defeat of Rutte's VVD who lost 10 seats.

The October election this year was triggered by Wilders and his party walking out of Government on June 3rd.

The seat numbers in November 2023 were: PVV 37, GL-PVDA 25, VVD 24 and NSC 20

The NSC has disintegrated and the CDA returned to front line politics having dropped to 5 seats in 2023 and now back up to 20. The PVV has 32 in the latest Verian poll, GL-PVDA 26 and VVD 26.

Cookie · June 25

Eabhal said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
An asylum seeker from Tajikistan has been allowed to stay in the UK because he would have had to shave his beard off if he was deported.

The unnamed man won an appeal after arguing that he could be tortured and have his facial hair forcibly removed if he was sent back home. The Home Office tried to deport him back to the Central Asian state, but an asylum court has now ruled that he may be entitled to international protection in the UK because of his beard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/migrant-can-stay-in-uk-because-he-does-not-want-to-shave/

Is there some massive jackpot prize for who can come up with the most ridiculous reason not to deport somebody?
What's the chance it was the "torture" bit that was important?

Why does the UK have to be more tolerant of radical Islam than Islamic states are?

Mexicanpete · June 25

FrancisUrquhart said:
Emily Eavis, the festival’s organiser, said: “Everyone is welcome here,”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/kneecap-welcome-at-glastonbury-despite-calls-for-ban/

I wonder if somebody went with "I heart Tommy Robinson" t-shirt they would be welcome?

Try it.

And then tell us how it went, possibly from your hospital bed.

stodge · June 25

Leon said:
This is indeed depressing polling

But look who “support” the second option (“tax them even if it makes us poorer”). Not reform or Tory voters, it’s Labour and Lib Dems. They are snivelling inadequate tiny dicked morons - bitterly jealous of success because they are such losers. Happy to impoverish the country as long as dynamic people suffer

UGH

Presumably the quarter of Conservative and Reform voters who also think that way are likewise challenged.

Mexicanpete · June 25

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Some interesting charts in the YouGov poll,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/25/working-class-voters-abandon-labour-for-reform-poll/
Wow. Cost of living and NHS nearly twice as important to Labour --> Reform switchers as immigration.

Has anyone told them about Nigel's plans for a contributory insurance based NHS? Moving on...

Theuniondivvie · June 25

Cookie said:

Eabhal said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
An asylum seeker from Tajikistan has been allowed to stay in the UK because he would have had to shave his beard off if he was deported.

The unnamed man won an appeal after arguing that he could be tortured and have his facial hair forcibly removed if he was sent back home. The Home Office tried to deport him back to the Central Asian state, but an asylum court has now ruled that he may be entitled to international protection in the UK because of his beard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/migrant-can-stay-in-uk-because-he-does-not-want-to-shave/

Is there some massive jackpot prize for who can come up with the most ridiculous reason not to deport somebody?
What's the chance it was the "torture" bit that was important?
Why does the UK have to be more tolerant of radical Islam than Islamic states are?

UK values = we’re just as intolerant as Islamic states.

FrancisUrquhart · June 25

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Emily Eavis, the festival’s organiser, said: “Everyone is welcome here,”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/kneecap-welcome-at-glastonbury-despite-calls-for-ban/

I wonder if somebody went with "I heart Tommy Robinson" t-shirt they would be welcome?
Leon’s getting on a bit for Glasto…

I don't know, that one out of Kneecap who wears a tea cosy is well into middle age.

Leon · June 25

FrancisUrquhart said:
An asylum seeker from Tajikistan has been allowed to stay in the UK because he would have had to shave his beard off if he was deported.

The unnamed man won an appeal after arguing that he could be tortured and have his facial hair forcibly removed if he was sent back home. The Home Office tried to deport him back to the Central Asian state, but an asylum court has now ruled that he may be entitled to international protection in the UK because of his beard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/migrant-can-stay-in-uk-because-he-does-not-want-to-shave/

Is there some massive jackpot prize for who can come up with the most ridiculous reason not to deport somebody?

A few weeks ago someone on X claimed that the judiciary no longer believes they have the moral right to deport ANYONE - however they cannot say this outright as it would be explosive. So they always find some covering excuse

At the time I dismissed this as hyperbole. Now I am properly unsure. Indeed I believe it might well be true

TheScreamingEagles · June 25

Leon said:
This is indeed depressing polling

But look who “support” the second option (“tax them even if it makes us poorer”). Not reform or Tory voters, it’s Labour and Lib Dems. They are snivelling inadequate tiny dicked morons - bitterly jealous of success because they are such losers. Happy to impoverish the country as long as dynamic people suffer

UGH

That’s the Brexit disease.

Cookie · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

maaarsh said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

maaarsh said:
That 2nd question really is quite damning on the two main parties of the left.
Especially Labour, 69% of Labour voters would raise taxes on the rich even if it lost revenue for public services, showing Labour is really at heart about class war. At least LD voters are near split in that scenario
Nonsense.

You are the most prolific class warrior on here, what with your elite schools, elitist universities and taxation free inheritance for the wealthiest families.

All those things can legitimately be held to benefit the national in totality. Deliberately hitting the economy because you think it will hurt your 'enemies' more is quite a different kettle of fish.
My point was specifically about HY's class warfare hypocrisy. He fights harder for his perceived "class" than Scargill ever did for the peasantry.

I dispute your point that educating "Tim Nice But Dim" or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson because of their parental wealth, whilst being wholly unemployable in any role that wasn't organised on their behalf by their entitled parents, is more appropriate and beneficial to the nation than a gifted son or daughter of a street cleaner having the opportunity to become Governor of the Bank of England or DPP.
Plenty did when we had more grammar schools, even 'son of a toolmaker' Sir Keir went to a grammar school for most of his secondary education and then DPP head and PM
Grammar schools brought with them their own intrinsic unfairness.

What about a fully funded universal education system like Mrs Thatcher promoted in the 1970s when as Education Minister she replaced Grammar Schools with top quality, meritocratic Comprehensives?

Comprehensives explicitly were NOT meritocratic.
ISTR the term 'meritocracy' was coined pejoratively to describe the horror of 'the clever' rising to the top. (Sounds daft, but bad news for the non-clever majority). Comprehensives were an outcome of this point of view.
(To be clear, I'm arguing with your use of the word 'meritocratic' rather than your position on grammar schools/comprehensives, on which my position is very much an essay question seeing both sides, even now not reaching a clear conclusion, despite most of my daughters being at grammar schools.)

Stuartinromford · June 25

stodge said:
Afternoon all

Sometimes you get your beliefs and views challenged head on and last evening, at a local meeting, I had the rare opportunity to meet and have a prolonged 1-to-1 conversation with a property developer or rather a senior planner at one of the big developers.

They are looking to redevelop a brownfield site near us (the site has a gasholder, electricity pylons and high pressure gas pipes running across it and is designated Metropolitan Open Land (MoL) in the Newham Local Plan).

The two big problems from the developer side were first the cost of decontamination. Removing a foot of topsoil across a 22 acre site isn't cheap or easy - deconstructing and cleaning a gasholder isn't easy or cheap with decades of accumulated and highly toxic sludge at the bottom.

On top of that, the second problem was the cost of construction - the cost of labour and materials had spiked in the past 3-5 years but that was exacerbated by Section 106 payments, community infrastructure levy payments and the carbon off-set tax. In other words, London was, in his view, the most expensive place in the world to build.

All that was further compounded by the fact flats and houses weren't being sold at the prices developers needed to make even a small profit so the argument very often came down to economics rather than NIMBY-ism. Could the site be developed - was it viable as a development opportunity?

The paradox, he said, was that the places where people most needed houses and the places most people wanted to live were the ones where the costs of construction were at their highest - specifically, Inner London brownfield sites. Newham isn't replete with Green Belt - the MoL was meant to be a form of urban green belt to provide some green space and prevent complete urban sprawl.

He also told me (and I don't know if it's true) in Q1 in London, 4,000 new dwellings were started and 3,000 completed but the requirement is 88,000 new dwellings per year which in his view was wholly unachievable.

I left the meeting frustrated and depressed - the housing problem has been widely portrayed as a struggle between developers and locals but it's nothing like that - it's a series of economic paradoxes which make sensible development economically unviable and force developers into over-dense applications simply in order to make the sums add up.

It may be there are special issues with brownfield and contaminated sites and the costs of their remediation which need to be mitigated "somehow" (and I've no idea how) but the fact the scarcity of alternatives mean such sites now have to be considered speaks volumes as to the size of the problems and the paucity of other solutions.

That was roughly why the Olympics site was available, wasn't it? Which points to a solution, albeit one that doesn't scale well.

Suspect the problem lies in trying to do the financial maths across too small a unit. If each development has to cover the costs of its own remediation, some sites will never make sense to develop, even if the alternative is hanging round as a bit of wasteland. The key bad choice (pollute the soil to a mad degree) has already been taken.

See also the food shops from the last thread. (Thanks, @Jim_Miller for the local detail.) It's in nobody's individual interests to be the ones to solve that problem. Or the wider question of providing services to people who cost a lot, or paying taxes.

I don't have much of an answer, beyond reheated Butskellism.

Leon · June 25

stodge said:

Leon said:
This is indeed depressing polling

But look who “support” the second option (“tax them even if it makes us poorer”). Not reform or Tory voters, it’s Labour and Lib Dems. They are snivelling inadequate tiny dicked morons - bitterly jealous of success because they are such losers. Happy to impoverish the country as long as dynamic people suffer

UGH
Presumably the quarter of Conservative and Reform voters who also think that way are likewise challenged.

Well, yes. Anyone who supports the second option is a cretin

boulay · June 25

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
An asylum seeker from Tajikistan has been allowed to stay in the UK because he would have had to shave his beard off if he was deported.

The unnamed man won an appeal after arguing that he could be tortured and have his facial hair forcibly removed if he was sent back home. The Home Office tried to deport him back to the Central Asian state, but an asylum court has now ruled that he may be entitled to international protection in the UK because of his beard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/25/migrant-can-stay-in-uk-because-he-does-not-want-to-shave/

Is there some massive jackpot prize for who can come up with the most ridiculous reason not to deport somebody?
A few weeks ago someone on X claimed that the judiciary no longer believes they have the moral right to deport ANYONE - however they cannot say this outright as it would be explosive. So they always find some covering excuse

At the time I dismissed this as hyperbole. Now I am properly unsure. Indeed I believe it might well be true

Are the judges in asylum courts full-on judges who have been through the crown court system and tried all sorts of cases or are they a specialist subset?

Or are they like magistrates, selected from the public without coming from a legal background?

I have no idea if they are in some way “self-selecting” and so feel the need to specialise in immigration or if it’s a judges’ cab rank situation where any asylum case is just given a random available judge.

algarkirk · June 25

I am not convinced TSE is right, though the tax question is a difficult one.

If TSE's view is taken to its end, then the super rich can lay down their terms for being gracious enough to deign to live in Mayfair and Kensington.

The politics of envy is horrible; but the politics of fairness is not. I should think quite a few people suspect that the super rich get away with tax stuff that most people don't anyway, and that if the bloke on £60K is paying a marginal rate of +40%, +student loan then the rate on the super rich should be quite a bit.

A balanced view I suggest is this: that we don't want to drive people out by punitive tax levels, but don't want to be blackmailed by anyone. When TME is 45% of GDP then taxes are going to be high. Whatever we do we can never compete with tax havens.

What do other high spend rich countries do with their plutocrats?

JosiasJessop · June 25

boulay said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Andy_JS said:
They probably don't care if they leave the country either, even if it makes the country poorer.
Ah, the rich "plastic patriots"

"Do what we want or we'll skream and skream and run away."

Yes, many of them will. But if they do, they've got no effing right to screech about the quality of services in the UK. The sad thing is, they seem to want it both ways: to pay eff-all tax, and yet not have to see any poor people. They don't *mind* poor people; it's just that they should remain out of sight...
Quite a lot of rich people in the U.K. are immigrants. To them, the quality of life vs tax burden is quite transactional.

It also goes down the scale. Why should my Indian colleague (in the country 4 years) stay in London vs move to Berlin?

It’s almost as if saying that there is no such thing as (or it’s evil there is) a British identity has a downside.
Indeed. We need to attract people. But as ever, it is a balance - and my point is about plastic patriots: people who talk about their love of the country, but threaten to move away the moment something goes against them. And who, almost always, use public services. And often comment from abroad anyway...
Just to clarify, did your wife love Turkey, did she move away when she found a better option for her life and did she use Turkish public services?

She loves Turkey, yes. She does not love Turkey's attitude to women and women's rights, and decided her life might best be spent in a more enlightened country. For her, it was not about money, but lifestyle.

Now, please tell us all about your wife so we can ask you about her motivations in life...

Leon · June 25

Any foreigner who commits a sexual or violent crime in this country, and who comes from a poorer, harsher country, can surely claim they will suffer WORSE treatment if they are sent home. Because they probably will

Ergo, we cannot deport any of these people as long as we are in the ECHR and we have a judicial class entirely composed of Woke fools

We need to quit the ECHR and purge ALL the lawyers. We need a revolution, in essence

MarqueeMark · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Some interesting charts in the YouGov poll,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/25/working-class-voters-abandon-labour-for-reform-poll/
Wow. Cost of living and NHS nearly twice as important to Labour --> Reform switchers as immigration.
Has anyone told them about Nigel's plans for a contributory insurance based NHS? Moving on...

The next election campaign is going to be brutal.

Big_G_NorthWales · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Some interesting charts in the YouGov poll,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/25/working-class-voters-abandon-labour-for-reform-poll/
Wow. Cost of living and NHS nearly twice as important to Labour --> Reform switchers as immigration.
Has anyone told them about Nigel's plans for a contributory insurance based NHS? Moving on...

You joke but this is inevitable

Consideration is needed to the NHS and pension's spending with means testing the highest rate tax payers, and wealthy asset holders, required to support themselves much more

Would someone like to explain why the basic pension should be paid to everyone, no matter their circumstances, and why shouldn't the better off have to contribute more to the NHS ?

These are the difficult questions that the country has to face because we are hugely overtaxed, borrowed and spent

The ridiculous decision by Starmer to reverse the WFP ironically will not improve his poll ratings and he looks more haunted every day

He braggs about the triple lock, promises 5% defence spending, announces the purchase of 12 x F35 which can carry nuclear warheads subject to, (yes you guessed it) Trumps approval, without having any idea how to pay for them

MarqueeMark · June 25

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

MarqueeMark said:
Biggest example of the politics of envy impacting politics is that Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump doesn't.

For the first time, using massive bunker-buster bombs have been used to try to secure one.
Obama's Nobel is and was a joke. Rich successful man becomes President. Whoop. Happens to be black.
Being Black was not why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Not being George W Bush is why he got it.
Ah yes, Dubya. Harks back to a gentler age of American Idiot.

Ah yes, "American Idiot".

Did Billie Joe Armstrong correctly predict a dystopian future or did life imitate art?

Twenty years ahead of his time.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

The politics of envy – politicalbetting.com

Comments