Skip to content

In some ways this is a very impressive achievement by Labour – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,331
    “Wolf Alice” is (are?) causing a major stir on Parkway. 15 yards from my flat

    No, I have no idea either
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,488
    28 years ago today Be Here Now, the fantastic Oasis LP, was released

    Mad for it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,736
    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    Remember, readers, that this is a lie. Leon is a racist. He has repeatedly voiced his view that there are significant genetic differences in things like intelligence between different supposed "races" around the world. He wants a country with more white babies. He touts nativist policies that would discriminate against immigrants, the children of immigrants and the grandchildren of immigrants.

    Racists pretend that if we just have a few slightly racist policies, then they'll be quiet and everything will be lovey-dovey. In practice, you give them some racist policies, they just want more, as we've seen with Trump.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,604
    Taz said:

    28 years ago today Be Here Now, the fantastic Oasis LP, was released

    Mad for it.

    I remember it. Posters of Trainspotting and Reservoir Dogs. Lord, I feel old.
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.

    I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.

    One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
    Here's the thing, though.

    The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.

    Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
    Here's the thing though, thats not actually true.

    Switzerland prioritises high skilled migration. A majority (53%) of immigrants to Switzerland are tertiary educated at least. Only 44% in the UK.

    So if we desire to be more like Switzerland, we need more high skilled migration and less low skilled.
    Also @rcs1000 it seems Switzerland only has to what I can see EU free movement and high-skilled migration routes for non-EU. No idea where your low skill migration claim for them comes, it seems the polar opposite to me.

    As for Singapore, they do have a lot of low skilled migrants but under very harsh conditions. Low skilled migrants ...

    ... are forbidden from marrying Singaporeans.
    ... have no pathway to permanent residency or citizenship.
    ... are forbidden from bringing in family or dependents.

    Whereas high skilled migrants to Singapore are treated more like here, where people can bring family and have a pathway to permanent residence and citizenship.

    So which model do you prefer?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,149
    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,672
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.

    I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.

    One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
    Here's the thing, though.

    The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.

    Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
    Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.

    Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
    That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
    That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
    Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
    Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
    If they do vote Reform then that is what they would get. The Reform Leadership are mock-Thatcherites, even if the voters are not.

    Reform is very much the Face Eating Leopards Party, seasoned with Xenophobia.
    They might but the they would likely swiftly revert to Labour again, in any case Reform are polling higher in the Midlands and East of England than the North and Wales
    If Reform get a majority, it wouldn't matter much. They would be stuck with them for 5 years, even if Farages ratings crater worse than Starmers. That's how our system works.
    Or we might end up with historical numbers of by-elections....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,406
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I'm typing these by voice dictation because I've had surgery on both my hands. That's why it's all bit fucked with the clipped prose style of a Raymond Chandler novel.

    Carpal tunnel?
    Dupuytren's Contracture.
    You, and Mrs Thatcher.

    All the best with the recovery.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,672

    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    Remember, readers, that this is a lie. Leon is a racist. He has repeatedly voiced his view that there are significant genetic differences in things like intelligence between different supposed "races" around the world. He wants a country with more white babies. He touts nativist policies that would discriminate against immigrants, the children of immigrants and the grandchildren of immigrants.

    Racists pretend that if we just have a few slightly racist policies, then they'll be quiet and everything will be lovey-dovey. In practice, you give them some racist policies, they just want more, as we've seen with Trump.
    "supposed races"? Really?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,437
    How much is it costing to have national guard and military patrolling DC streets?

    What happened to DOGE?

    It was all about waste, waste and more waste.

    Americans have such short attention spans.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,149

    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback

    Though this is certainly good environmental news:

    Atlantic salmon have been confirmed as breeding in the River Don for the first time in more than two centuries.

    The Don Catchment Rivers Trust (DCRT) said discovering a wild-born salmon in the river was the first evidence of successful spawning since they were wiped out by pollution and man-made barriers in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

    It follows more than two decades of installing fish passes to reconnect the river, allowing salmon to return.

    The trust's co-founder Chris Firth described the discovery of the fish as the "culmination" of his life's work.

    He said although adult salmon had been spotted before in the river the trust had not been sure if they were managing to spawn.

    The young fish, known as a parr, was found during an electrofishing survey in Sheffield this month by DCRT staff and volunteers.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly7gqx2zw0o

    There wasn't any salmon in the Don when Yorkshire Water was nationalised.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945

    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    Remember, readers, that this is a lie. Leon is a racist. He has repeatedly voiced his view that there are significant genetic differences in things like intelligence between different supposed "races" around the world. He wants a country with more white babies. He touts nativist policies that would discriminate against immigrants, the children of immigrants and the grandchildren of immigrants.

    Racists pretend that if we just have a few slightly racist policies, then they'll be quiet and everything will be lovey-dovey. In practice, you give them some racist policies, they just want more, as we've seen with Trump.
    "supposed races"? Really?
    Race is a mercurial concept. On one hand it’s really hard to find that much to tell ‘races’ apart, at least on a biological level. So there are essentially no races. And yet humans behave as if race is a real thing and have set up society in ways that discriminate in favour of some and against others. Less so nowadays, of course. So race either exists or doesn’t depending on who you talk to.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,966
    edited August 21

    How much is it costing to have national guard and military patrolling DC streets?

    What happened to DOGE?

    It was all about waste, waste and more waste.

    Americans have such short attention spans.

    Trump's Big Beautiful Bill burst any illusion of cost cutting.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945

    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback

    Brexit benefit - determining for yourself how you want to behave.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,437
    Taz said:

    28 years ago today Be Here Now, the fantastic Oasis LP, was released

    Mad for it.

    Never heard of them.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,149

    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback

    Brexit benefit - determining for yourself how you want to behave.
    Indeed.

    And ministers will now have to think for themselves and be judged on their own decisions rather than outsourcing the decisions and blame to the EU.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,633

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.

    I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.

    One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
    Here's the thing, though.

    The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.

    Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
    Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.

    Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
    That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
    That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
    Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
    Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
    If they do vote Reform then that is what they would get. The Reform Leadership are mock-Thatcherites, even if the voters are not.

    Reform is very much the Face Eating Leopards Party, seasoned with Xenophobia.
    They might but the they would likely swiftly revert to Labour again, in any case Reform are polling higher in the Midlands and East of England than the North and Wales
    If Reform get a majority, it wouldn't matter much. They would be stuck with them for 5 years, even if Farages ratings crater worse than Starmers. That's how our system works.
    Or we might end up with historical numbers of by-elections....
    Like MAGA, MEGA won't require future elections. And the scary thing is Farage is much, much younger than the Tangerine Mussolini (Rosie O'Donnell's interpretation of the Mango Mussolini).
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,633

    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback

    Though this is certainly good environmental news:

    Atlantic salmon have been confirmed as breeding in the River Don for the first time in more than two centuries.

    The Don Catchment Rivers Trust (DCRT) said discovering a wild-born salmon in the river was the first evidence of successful spawning since they were wiped out by pollution and man-made barriers in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

    It follows more than two decades of installing fish passes to reconnect the river, allowing salmon to return.

    The trust's co-founder Chris Firth described the discovery of the fish as the "culmination" of his life's work.

    He said although adult salmon had been spotted before in the river the trust had not been sure if they were managing to spawn.

    The young fish, known as a parr, was found during an electrofishing survey in Sheffield this month by DCRT staff and volunteers.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly7gqx2zw0o

    There wasn't any salmon in the Don when Yorkshire Water was nationalised.
    There is now! Trouble is it has been previously digested.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,353

    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback

    Brexit benefit - determining for yourself how you want to behave.
    One of the few things I've heard recently that reflects any credit on the Starmer Government. Though sadly I suspect the 'rolling back' is just a failure to make the loonier things they've done since we've left a part of British law, rather than any conscious liberalisation.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,149

    How much is it costing to have national guard and military patrolling DC streets?

    What happened to DOGE?

    It was all about waste, waste and more waste.

    Americans have such short attention spans.

    Not just how much is it costing but who is paying ?

    Federal government, individual states, DC or a combination ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,601
    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    " Start huge deportations"!

    Of who?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,676
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I'm typing these by voice dictation because I've had surgery on both my hands. That's why it's all bit fucked with the clipped prose style of a Raymond Chandler novel.

    Carpal tunnel?
    Dupuytren's Contracture.
    Both sides?

    So you won't be needing a VPN for a few weeks...

  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,452
    IPSOS poll on the Corbyn/Sultana party.
    https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/one-five-britons-would-consider-voting-new-left-wing-party-rising-one-three-young-people-and-labour

    Would you consider voting for the party?
    Overall: Yes 20%, No 69%
    2024 Labour: Yes 33%, No 60%
    2024 Conservatives: Yes 8%, No 90%
    2024 Reform: Yes 5%, No 91%
    2024 Lib Dems: Yes 18%, No 73%
    2024 Greens: Yes 43%, No 48%

    Would you consider voting for an alliance between Greens and the new left-wing party?
    Overall: Yes 31%, No 55%
    2024 Labour: Yes 48%, No 41%
    2024 Conservatives: Yes 12%, No 85%
    2024 Reform: Yes 12%, No 85%
    2024 Lib Dems: Yes 29%, No 55%
    2024 Greens: Yes 63%, No 22%

    Seems like the Greens would like their number to be more like 80/10 before jumping into an alliance so 22% against the idea might scupper it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    edited August 21

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
    So if you retire at 68 and die at 74 of cancer you would still be liable for IHT on the farm
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,966
    Joe Root showing why he is England's best ever batsman....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,406
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, I actually do agree with a lot of what @Leon is saying. But I feel compelled to disagree with him for some reason.

    Including mass deportation ?

    I have no fundamental problem with a considerably stricter immigration system, or measures to address the "pull factor".

    But mass deportations do not tend to end well at all, and require measures which are usually more toxic than the problems they seek to address.

    The only category of immigrants for which it is practicable are those most recently arrived, who are still under the control of the authorities, and who fail to qualify for the right to remain.

    Obama deported around 3m (more than any other president) in this way.
    The UK equivalent would be around 600k, over two parliaments.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,117
    edited August 21
    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    edited August 21
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.

    I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.

    One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
    Here's the thing, though.

    The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.

    Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
    Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.

    Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
    That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
    That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
    Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
    Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
    I thought you were against lots of people going to university?

    *confused*
    Even in Switzerland nearly half the population don't go to university but I never said I was against those going to university who have above average intelligence and are suitable to join the professions or senior management
    I would argue you don't need to go to university to be senior management. You need to go to university for certain very specialist skills e.g. medicine - or specialist fields e.g. chemistry. Struggling to think of any other examples in which a university education is as good as three years experience and training in your chosen field.
    Most senior managers have degrees though or even MBAs. You also need a degree to become a nurse let alone a doctor, academics, teachers, clergy, solicitors and barristers, senior civil servants, broadsheet journalism and the top ranks of the BBC, even investment bank and big tech firms almost all require degrees too
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,406

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Selling the family silver, or never had it so good ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,966
    German prosecutors say a Ukrainian man has been arrested in Italy on suspicion of blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea, several months after the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    The man, identified only as Serhii K, was arrested in the province of Rimini and was part of a group who planted explosives under the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines from Russia to Germany, federal prosecutors say.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkz1jl5j06o
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,406
    edited August 21
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, I actually do agree with a lot of what @Leon is saying. But I feel compelled to disagree with him for some reason.

    Including mass deportation ?

    I have no fundamental problem with a considerably stricter immigration system, or measures to address the "pull factor".

    But mass deportations do not tend to end well at all, and require measures which are usually more toxic than the problems they seek to address.

    The only category of immigrants for which it is practicable are those most recently arrived, who are still under the control of the authorities, and who fail to qualify for the right to remain.

    Obama deported around 3m*) more than any other president) in this way.
    The UK equivalent would be around 600k, over two parliaments.
    *that was largely those returned across the Mexican border, shortly after they arrived.
    Doing something similar in the UK would be considerably harder.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,966
    edited August 21

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,292

    How much is it costing to have national guard and military patrolling DC streets?

    What happened to DOGE?

    It was all about waste, waste and more waste.

    Americans have such short attention spans.

    It's never about smaller government or saving money. It's about more government on the things you prefer, whatever the cost.

    Like all those 'libertarians' who are huge fans of messing with other peoples' rights.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,709

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    They were recalling the 'great' days of 24% inflation under Labour in 1975, and possibly discussing how Rachel could take it to 30% by the time she is finished 👿👿👿
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,488
    Just ordered a curry

    Asked for Helicopter Rice

    They only had plain.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,364

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 216

    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    " Start huge deportations"!

    Of who?
    1.7m without leave to remain.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,406
    Last night, Putin sent 2 missiles 700 miles to destroy this one American factory.

    And Trump will spend the day continuing to praise him.

    https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1958489376461119916
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,292

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
    Here in the south we judge by Curly-Wurly.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,966
    edited August 21
    kle4 said:

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
    Here in the south we judge by Curly-Wurly.
    I remember when they were 10p and as big as my head.

    I also remember when a 99 ice cream was 99p, not £4.99.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,995

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    Experienced it today at the big Tesco on Savile St. Couldn't believe it, went back to check the price.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,216
    edited August 21

    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback

    Though this is certainly good environmental news:

    Atlantic salmon have been confirmed as breeding in the River Don for the first time in more than two centuries.

    The Don Catchment Rivers Trust (DCRT) said discovering a wild-born salmon in the river was the first evidence of successful spawning since they were wiped out by pollution and man-made barriers in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

    It follows more than two decades of installing fish passes to reconnect the river, allowing salmon to return.

    The trust's co-founder Chris Firth described the discovery of the fish as the "culmination" of his life's work.

    He said although adult salmon had been spotted before in the river the trust had not been sure if they were managing to spawn.

    The young fish, known as a parr, was found during an electrofishing survey in Sheffield this month by DCRT staff and volunteers.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly7gqx2zw0o

    There wasn't any salmon in the Don when Yorkshire Water was nationalised.
    There's a persistent story that apprentices at Attercliffe petitioned that they should only be fed salmon twice a week. It was even repeated by Prince Charles (as was) at a conference. It turns out this is a widespread bit of fake news:
    https://brill.com/edcollchap-oa/book/9789004681187/BP000025.xml?language=en

    However it is still a great result. Unfortunately Mrs Flatlander wasn't doing the electrofishing this year although she is a DCRT volunteer.

    I will see if I can dig out the picture of the waves of foam on the river in the 1970s. It really was completely dead.

    If you speak to Chris he will tell you that privatisation was the beginning of the positive change.

    His book is here:
    https://dcrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/900-years-of-the-RDon-fishery.pdf
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,989
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,672

    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    Remember, readers, that this is a lie. Leon is a racist. He has repeatedly voiced his view that there are significant genetic differences in things like intelligence between different supposed "races" around the world. He wants a country with more white babies. He touts nativist policies that would discriminate against immigrants, the children of immigrants and the grandchildren of immigrants.

    Racists pretend that if we just have a few slightly racist policies, then they'll be quiet and everything will be lovey-dovey. In practice, you give them some racist policies, they just want more, as we've seen with Trump.
    "supposed races"? Really?
    Race is a mercurial concept. On one hand it’s really hard to find that much to tell ‘races’ apart, at least on a biological level. So there are essentially no races. And yet humans behave as if race is a real thing and have set up society in ways that discriminate in favour of some and against others. Less so nowadays, of course. So race either exists or doesn’t depending on who you talk to.
    So racism is an arguable concept?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,772

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have said this before, but I am surprised just how unpopular Labour are.

    You can't come in promising change and then deliver the same shoddy, half baked governing as the last lot. If anything they've made things worse, inflation is back up, the economy is slowing down, business investment has cratered, unemployment is up and the border crisis is worse than what the Tories left behind.

    There aren't any measures where Labour are doing anything appreciably better than the previous government, therefore they are now just as unpopular. I also think people really, really don't like Starmer. Very few defenders left (mostly on here).
    I know this, you know this. But there are still a decent chunk of the country who for things like NI on your employer won't be directly seen by them. Many public sector workers have got large pay increases, as have minimum wage workers.

    Also they went hard on the narrative of the country is broken because of 14 years of Tory failure / £20bn blackhole. The Coalition did that in 2010 and it gave them a fair bit of breathing room. It doesn't seemed to have worked for Labour.

    And as you say, Starmer appears to really rub people up the wrong way. Which again, I find a little surprising. He isn't my cup of tea, I find him massively uninspiring and overpromoted, but it doesn't drive me to want to smash my telly up like Gordon Brown. I also presumed a decent chunk of people who go for the spin of well he is boring and reliable unlike Boris.
    I suspect a big chunk of that 13% is made up of public sector workers who have benefited from pay rises.
    Public sector pay has gone up by less than private sector since Labour came to power, so I doubt they're particularly happy either.
    assume you exclude doctors in that, not many in private sector had near 30%
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,450
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,676
    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have said this before, but I am surprised just how unpopular Labour are.

    You can't come in promising change and then deliver the same shoddy, half baked governing as the last lot. If anything they've made things worse, inflation is back up, the economy is slowing down, business investment has cratered, unemployment is up and the border crisis is worse than what the Tories left behind.

    There aren't any measures where Labour are doing anything appreciably better than the previous government, therefore they are now just as unpopular. I also think people really, really don't like Starmer. Very few defenders left (mostly on here).
    I know this, you know this. But there are still a decent chunk of the country who for things like NI on your employer won't be directly seen by them. Many public sector workers have got large pay increases, as have minimum wage workers.

    Also they went hard on the narrative of the country is broken because of 14 years of Tory failure / £20bn blackhole. The Coalition did that in 2010 and it gave them a fair bit of breathing room. It doesn't seemed to have worked for Labour.

    And as you say, Starmer appears to really rub people up the wrong way. Which again, I find a little surprising. He isn't my cup of tea, I find him massively uninspiring and overpromoted, but it doesn't drive me to want to smash my telly up like Gordon Brown. I also presumed a decent chunk of people who go for the spin of well he is boring and reliable unlike Boris.
    I suspect a big chunk of that 13% is made up of public sector workers who have benefited from pay rises.
    Public sector pay has gone up by less than private sector since Labour came to power, so I doubt they're particularly happy either.
    assume you exclude doctors in that, not many in private sector had near 30%
    Not many doctors either. I got 4% this year.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,810

    German prosecutors say a Ukrainian man has been arrested in Italy on suspicion of blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea, several months after the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    The man, identified only as Serhii K, was arrested in the province of Rimini and was part of a group who planted explosives under the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines from Russia to Germany, federal prosecutors say.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkz1jl5j06o

    They've not been paying him properly if he has to lie low in Rimini. Sunnier than blackpool but just as tacky.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,450
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Then so be it - parents love for their children requires them to treat them equally
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    The family home, land and buildings are excluded from inheritance rights under Scottish succession law
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,772
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.

    I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.

    One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
    Here's the thing, though.

    The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.

    Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
    But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.

    It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
    Well, why don't we do something about that?
    We do. Virtually all visas include a stipulation "no recourse to public funds".

    This only lapses when permanent residence is granted after a minimum of 5 years, with only rare exceptions.

    Of course it is possible and not even unusual to live your entire life in the UK if an Irish or Commonwealth citizen or even RoW, as we see with the Windrush scandal. It's a misunderstanding of the rules to think that none of these people should be eligible for UC.
    So why are illegal immigrants living high on the hog
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Then so be it - parents love for their children requires them to treat them equally
    Fine but don't be a farmer as you will have no commercially viable family farm left after a generation or two
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,601

    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    " Start huge deportations"!

    Of who?
    1.7m without leave to remain.
    I asked @Leon. Which is the point: shitheads saying things like " Start huge deportations"! without stating *who* they want to deport are trying to gain acceptance for their own views: which may not be quite the same as you see it.

    And from what he's said in the past, his view of who to deport might have a rather different basis...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,676

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
    I find it simpler to divide all prices by 3, then consider whether that is a reasonable price.

    It takes me back to the middle eighties.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,676
    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.

    I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.

    One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
    Here's the thing, though.

    The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.

    Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
    But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.

    It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
    Well, why don't we do something about that?
    We do. Virtually all visas include a stipulation "no recourse to public funds".

    This only lapses when permanent residence is granted after a minimum of 5 years, with only rare exceptions.

    Of course it is possible and not even unusual to live your entire life in the UK if an Irish or Commonwealth citizen or even RoW, as we see with the Windrush scandal. It's a misunderstanding of the rules to think that none of these people should be eligible for UC.
    So why are illegal immigrants living high on the hog
    I don't think they are.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,216
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Then so be it - parents love for their children requires them to treat them equally
    Fine but don't be a farmer as you will have no commercially viable family farm left after a generation or two
    What if the eldest doesn't like farming?
  • German prosecutors say a Ukrainian man has been arrested in Italy on suspicion of blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea, several months after the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    The man, identified only as Serhii K, was arrested in the province of Rimini and was part of a group who planted explosives under the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines from Russia to Germany, federal prosecutors say.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkz1jl5j06o

    Should be getting a medal, not prosecuted.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,772
    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have said this before, but I am surprised just how unpopular Labour are.

    You can't come in promising change and then deliver the same shoddy, half baked governing as the last lot. If anything they've made things worse, inflation is back up, the economy is slowing down, business investment has cratered, unemployment is up and the border crisis is worse than what the Tories left behind.

    There aren't any measures where Labour are doing anything appreciably better than the previous government, therefore they are now just as unpopular. I also think people really, really don't like Starmer. Very few defenders left (mostly on here).
    I know this, you know this. But there are still a decent chunk of the country who for things like NI on your employer won't be directly seen by them. Many public sector workers have got large pay increases, as have minimum wage workers.

    Also they went hard on the narrative of the country is broken because of 14 years of Tory failure / £20bn blackhole. The Coalition did that in 2010 and it gave them a fair bit of breathing room. It doesn't seemed to have worked for Labour.

    And as you say, Starmer appears to really rub people up the wrong way. Which again, I find a little surprising. He isn't my cup of tea, I find him massively uninspiring and overpromoted, but it doesn't drive me to want to smash my telly up like Gordon Brown. I also presumed a decent chunk of people who go for the spin of well he is boring and reliable unlike Boris.
    I suspect a big chunk of that 13% is made up of public sector workers who have benefited from pay rises.
    Public sector pay has gone up by less than private sector since Labour came to power, so I doubt they're particularly happy either.
    assume you exclude doctors in that, not many in private sector had near 30%
    Not many doctors either. I got 4% this year.
    Foxy 4% of yours is like 30% for everyone else though.
  • Foxy said:

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
    I find it simpler to divide all prices by 3, then consider whether that is a reasonable price.

    It takes me back to the middle eighties.
    I got three ice creams from a van the other day, paid £9 for the 3, so it was £3 for each 99.

    So your divide by three works for that!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,989
    edited August 21
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    The family home, land and buildings are excluded from inheritance rights under Scottish succession law
    More complex than that for farms. In many, depending on the operation, the land becomes part of the moveable property subject to the inheritance rights.

    And you forget that the surviving spouse gets the house for life.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,601
    "UK's third-largest steelworks collapses into government control
    ...
    Insolvency courts granted a compulsory winding up order sought by creditors owed hundreds of millions of pounds by Speciality Steels UK (SSUK) – part of the Liberty Steel metals empire of controversial tycoon Sanjeev Gupta."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0818y4jdlo
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,804
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    That would benefit the economy as family farms are generally extremely low productivity, even for a low productivity sector like farming. Very small and small farms account for 27% of farmed land but only 11% of output, while very large farms produce 62% of output with only 35% of the land.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c09f30c4319100141a44fd/FBS_Evidence_Pack_24jan24i.pdf

    Whatever romantic drivel people spout about family farms, the sooner they are gone the better.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,604
    "...Dear CoPilot365. I have the following code in Stata. "logistic myind1 i.mygroup1 i.mygroup2" I have been asked to change it to use the variable "mysite" as a random effect. Note that "mysite" is a categorical variable..."

    logistic myind1 i.mygroup1 i.mygroup2 || mysite:

    :):):)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    edited August 21
    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    That would benefit the economy as family farms are generally extremely low productivity, even for a low productivity sector like farming. Very small and small farms account for 27% of farmed land but only 11% of output, while very large farms produce 62% of output with only 35% of the land.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c09f30c4319100141a44fd/FBS_Evidence_Pack_24jan24i.pdf

    Whatever romantic drivel people spout about family farms, the sooner they are gone the better.
    No, it would just see the land sold off for development or solar panels.

    When what 5 years of war in Ukraine, lockdowns and Trump's tariffs have shown is we need family farm produced food more than ever.

    Smaller farms also tend to be more organic and environmentally friendly than the largest agri corp owned farms, though of course there are some very large farms which are also still family owned too.

    Indeed given your link classifies a 'very large' farm as one with at least 500k output then those family farms would be the ones most affected by Reeves' farm tax
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,672

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
    Freddos indicate hyperinflation...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,676
    Subsamples gonna subsample:

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/support-for-reform-among-young-brits-plummets-397004/

    So it looks that the support for Reform in the 18-24s that got low IQ posters frotting themselves into a frenzy has faded.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
    So if you retire at 68 and die at 74 of cancer you would still be liable for IHT on the farm
    Yes - shit luck and all. But why not transfer the farm at 50?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    The family home, land and buildings are excluded from inheritance rights under Scottish succession law
    More complex than that for farms. In many, depending on the operation, the land becomes part of the moveable property subject to the inheritance rights.

    And you forget that the surviving spouse gets the house for life.

    The surviving spouse is almost always the mother of the eldest son who would take on the family farm anyway
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 149

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
    If there is one thing stifling the ag industry, its the volume of elderly farmers retaining control, often full control of their business assets, right down to every payment the business makes, well into their 70s 80s and beyond when there are enthusiastic members of family keen and involved in the business.

    In many cases, the individuals in charge are long past being fit to work with livestock or machinery, which is why we now have an average age of 59 for farmers

    It doesn't happen on such a wide scale in any other industry, except maybe US presidents

    I can see why the government want to encourage transfer of ownership to younger generations in good time.

    The current changes and push to incentivise renewables/SFI/forestry means large chunks of UK farmland will be owned by foreign investment companies. Farming is finding out how the steel and coal industries felt in the 80s and 90s, rationalisation. The result will be a lot fewer farmers, amalgamation and more farm managers

    I suspect the Chancellor is eyeing up the 7 year rule for IHT and considering options. £500 million is not a lot of money coming in from the farm IHT change, and it will take a long time before it starts to funnel through to the treasury in any quantity
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Then so be it - parents love for their children requires them to treat them equally
    Fine but don't be a farmer as you will have no commercially viable family farm left after a generation or two
    What if the eldest doesn't like farming?
    Then it goes to the second son but the eldest son is almost always trained from a young age on the farm and how to manage it, so the second son goes off an becomes an accountant or joins the army etc
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945
    Pulpstar said:

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    Experienced it today at the big Tesco on Savile St. Couldn't believe it, went back to check the price.
    COOP on campus has it at £4. I take great delight in making the biggest saving possible, even buying food I don’t actually like, just to ‘save’ £3…
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,278

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    The retuirn of gavelkind! Which was the default option in Kent until the Administration of Estates Act 1925. Under gavelkind inheritance was among all sons equally. Where there were no sons in England practice varied, but if it went to daughters it usually went equally. Impartible inheritance to eldest son was commonest. Though some areas had descent to the youngest, known as Borough English. (Like betting on the last person to score, it kept the excitement going right to the end of the game).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945

    The UK is using Brexit to weaken crucial environmental protections and is falling behind the EU despite Labour’s manifesto pledge not to dilute standards, analysis has found.

    Experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/19/uk-falling-behind-eu-environmental-rules-post-brexit-rollback

    Though this is certainly good environmental news:

    Atlantic salmon have been confirmed as breeding in the River Don for the first time in more than two centuries.

    The Don Catchment Rivers Trust (DCRT) said discovering a wild-born salmon in the river was the first evidence of successful spawning since they were wiped out by pollution and man-made barriers in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

    It follows more than two decades of installing fish passes to reconnect the river, allowing salmon to return.

    The trust's co-founder Chris Firth described the discovery of the fish as the "culmination" of his life's work.

    He said although adult salmon had been spotted before in the river the trust had not been sure if they were managing to spawn.

    The young fish, known as a parr, was found during an electrofishing survey in Sheffield this month by DCRT staff and volunteers.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly7gqx2zw0o

    There wasn't any salmon in the Don when Yorkshire Water was nationalised.
    There's a persistent story that apprentices at Attercliffe petitioned that they should only be fed salmon twice a week. It was even repeated by Prince Charles (as was) at a conference. It turns out this is a widespread bit of fake news:
    https://brill.com/edcollchap-oa/book/9789004681187/BP000025.xml?language=en

    However it is still a great result. Unfortunately Mrs Flatlander wasn't doing the electrofishing this year although she is a DCRT volunteer.

    I will see if I can dig out the picture of the waves of foam on the river in the 1970s. It really was completely dead.

    If you speak to Chris he will tell you that privatisation was the beginning of the positive change.

    His book is here:
    https://dcrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/900-years-of-the-RDon-fishery.pdf
    And yet the perception, perhaps because of some very vocal campaigners (wild swimmers, surfers) is that the water in this country is worse than ever.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    DoctorG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
    If there is one thing stifling the ag industry, its the volume of elderly farmers retaining control, often full control of their business assets, right down to every payment the business makes, well into their 70s 80s and beyond when there are enthusiastic members of family keen and involved in the business.

    In many cases, the individuals in charge are long past being fit to work with livestock or machinery, which is why we now have an average age of 59 for farmers

    It doesn't happen on such a wide scale in any other industry, except maybe US presidents

    I can see why the government want to encourage transfer of ownership to younger generations in good time.

    The current changes and push to incentivise renewables/SFI/forestry means large chunks of UK farmland will be owned by foreign investment companies. Farming is finding out how the steel and coal industries felt in the 80s and 90s, rationalisation. The result will be a lot fewer farmers, amalgamation and more farm managers

    I suspect the Chancellor is eyeing up the 7 year rule for IHT and considering options. £500 million is not a lot of money coming in from the farm IHT change, and it will take a long time before it starts to funnel through to the treasury in any quantity
    Which will be a disaster, handing over much of our food supply to foreign companies, see the steel industry lesson where only today the government has had to take control of our third largest steelwork whose owners are based in Singapore.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    edited August 21

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
    So if you retire at 68 and die at 74 of cancer you would still be liable for IHT on the farm
    Yes - shit luck and all. But why not transfer the farm at 50?
    And if you die of cancer or a car crash at 56? Also as a farmer you have to build up your own pension and are unlikely to have enough by then
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,278
    Foxy said:

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
    I find it simpler to divide all prices by 3, then consider whether that is a reasonable price.

    It takes me back to the middle eighties.
    Try that with a pint in the pub when you started drinking in 1972 when it was 14p in London. (By the inflation calculator, a London pint should now be £1.67)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945

    Leon said:

    I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads

    If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to

    1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country

    2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats

    3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home

    That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"

    To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too

    Remember, readers, that this is a lie. Leon is a racist. He has repeatedly voiced his view that there are significant genetic differences in things like intelligence between different supposed "races" around the world. He wants a country with more white babies. He touts nativist policies that would discriminate against immigrants, the children of immigrants and the grandchildren of immigrants.

    Racists pretend that if we just have a few slightly racist policies, then they'll be quiet and everything will be lovey-dovey. In practice, you give them some racist policies, they just want more, as we've seen with Trump.
    "supposed races"? Really?
    Race is a mercurial concept. On one hand it’s really hard to find that much to tell ‘races’ apart, at least on a biological level. So there are essentially no races. And yet humans behave as if race is a real thing and have set up society in ways that discriminate in favour of some and against others. Less so nowadays, of course. So race either exists or doesn’t depending on who you talk to.
    So racism is an arguable concept?
    It’s certainly complex. Bondegezou would argue that biologically there is no such thing as race (apols to him if I’ve misrepresented his view) and certainly we see far more difference man vs woman in say drug trials than between supposed races. That’s not to say that there aren’t differences - black men in the U.K. are twice as likely to get prostate cancer, for instance, and brown people are more prone to diabetes. But it’s really hard to define a race.

    Unless of course you are talking to sociologists. Or Nazis.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,796
    Nigelb said:

    Last night, Putin sent 2 missiles 700 miles to destroy this one American factory.

    And Trump will spend the day continuing to praise him.

    https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1958489376461119916

    He is the most traitorous senior politician in any liberal democracy that I can think of. It's really quite remarkable what he's been able to get away with.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Except you will see some buy put the others.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    Foxy said:

    Subsamples gonna subsample:

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/support-for-reform-among-young-brits-plummets-397004/

    So it looks that the support for Reform in the 18-24s that got low IQ posters frotting themselves into a frenzy has faded.

    The Tories now on 10% with 18-24s, up 2% on their 2024 18-24 voteshare and ahead of Reform on 8% with under 25s.

    Kemi making her only net gains relative to Rishi with young people it seems, while Farage is loathed by youngsters, especially young women
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945
    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have said this before, but I am surprised just how unpopular Labour are.

    You can't come in promising change and then deliver the same shoddy, half baked governing as the last lot. If anything they've made things worse, inflation is back up, the economy is slowing down, business investment has cratered, unemployment is up and the border crisis is worse than what the Tories left behind.

    There aren't any measures where Labour are doing anything appreciably better than the previous government, therefore they are now just as unpopular. I also think people really, really don't like Starmer. Very few defenders left (mostly on here).
    I know this, you know this. But there are still a decent chunk of the country who for things like NI on your employer won't be directly seen by them. Many public sector workers have got large pay increases, as have minimum wage workers.

    Also they went hard on the narrative of the country is broken because of 14 years of Tory failure / £20bn blackhole. The Coalition did that in 2010 and it gave them a fair bit of breathing room. It doesn't seemed to have worked for Labour.

    And as you say, Starmer appears to really rub people up the wrong way. Which again, I find a little surprising. He isn't my cup of tea, I find him massively uninspiring and overpromoted, but it doesn't drive me to want to smash my telly up like Gordon Brown. I also presumed a decent chunk of people who go for the spin of well he is boring and reliable unlike Boris.
    I suspect a big chunk of that 13% is made up of public sector workers who have benefited from pay rises.
    Public sector pay has gone up by less than private sector since Labour came to power, so I doubt they're particularly happy either.
    assume you exclude doctors in that, not many in private sector had near 30%
    Not many doctors either. I got 4% this year.
    Lucky you - uni uplift was 1.4%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Except you will see some buy put the others.
    They would need the income to do so and the others willing to sell
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,112
    Do your own vox pops with your mates. Labour are loathed. Tories ditto
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945
    HYUFD said:

    DoctorG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
    If there is one thing stifling the ag industry, its the volume of elderly farmers retaining control, often full control of their business assets, right down to every payment the business makes, well into their 70s 80s and beyond when there are enthusiastic members of family keen and involved in the business.

    In many cases, the individuals in charge are long past being fit to work with livestock or machinery, which is why we now have an average age of 59 for farmers

    It doesn't happen on such a wide scale in any other industry, except maybe US presidents

    I can see why the government want to encourage transfer of ownership to younger generations in good time.

    The current changes and push to incentivise renewables/SFI/forestry means large chunks of UK farmland will be owned by foreign investment companies. Farming is finding out how the steel and coal industries felt in the 80s and 90s, rationalisation. The result will be a lot fewer farmers, amalgamation and more farm managers

    I suspect the Chancellor is eyeing up the 7 year rule for IHT and considering options. £500 million is not a lot of money coming in from the farm IHT change, and it will take a long time before it starts to funnel through to the treasury in any quantity
    Which will be a disaster, handing over much of our food supply to foreign companies, see the steel industry lesson where only today the government has had to take control of our third largest steelwork whose owners are based in Singapore.

    It’s only a concern if the U boats start knocking out the ships again. This is globalisation. Why make expensive steel in Redcar when it’s cheaper from elsewhere?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,796
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    This was enforced by law on the Catholic Irish precisely in order to destroy independent Catholic farmers and to reduce them to dependency on English landowners. It was one of many factors that made rural Ireland so vulnerable to the potato blight which caused the potato famine.
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 149
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Does France do something like this? Think the average acreage is smaller over there, albeit on decent land
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,711
    My son, now graduated and set for a first grad job start date in September (the unemployment is overwhelmingly just a transition for almost all), currently enjoying the Wild West that is wplace.

    https://wplace.live/

    Interesting looking round, Russians may well be somewhat blocked, but certainly Ukraine winning on here.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,117
    rcs1000 said:

    Request for PB Beta Testers

    Some of you might have noticed that I've not been posting on PB as often as I used to in the past. There's a reason for that. I've been working on a new project in my spare time called Halbut. It's a play on Hal, But not evil. I've been using many of these voice dictation apps that are out there, and the question I had or I asked myself was: "Was it possible to do something that was significantly more AI-enhanced?" This is what Halbut does.

    There are three modes:

    Transcription:

    You hold down an a hotkey (I like Caps Lock) and it listens and then it transcribes. It's very quick, very effective (of course it uses a fast inference provider on the back-end). In addition, you can set it to clean up the text in terms not just of adding punctuation (which is automatic), but also things like bullet points, paragraphs, removing duplication etc.

    Command Mode:

    You press another hotkey (say Shift-Caps lock), and you give it a command like "Write a paragraph about the dangers of phosphates" for example, and it fills that in. Or "Give me three reasons why you should be suspicious of x y z". In other words, if the ability to insert a sensible, well-written stuff into your emails or letters (and I hope not PB posts).

    Question Model:

    Another hotekey (Ctrl-Caps Lock in my case) and you just ask it a quick question like "You know, what's the best library to do this?" or "Who's the president of Ethiopia?" or whatever, and it just speaks it back to you. The idea is that by enabling you to ask quick questions without taking your hands off the keyboard, it makes you more productive.

    Anyway, I'll be launching this firstly for Windows, and then hopefully Mac and Linux. I'm looking for Windows beta testers for now. It is completely free (for now). It'll probably be free for transcription (with limits), and $5/month for all the features.

    Send me an email if you want to beta test, and you will probably get access next week. (Once I get the hang of packaging up Windows applications for distribution.)
    ChatGPT told me to say:

    "Sounds really exciting — congratulations on getting Halbut this far! The three-mode approach feels both intuitive and practical, especially the way you’ve integrated command and question handling alongside transcription. I can definitely see how that could streamline a lot of day-to-day tasks.

    I’d be happy to help test the Windows beta. Please let me know what’s the best way to send feedback (bugs, feature requests, usability notes, etc.) once I get access.

    Looking forward to trying it out and seeing how it develops!"

    But I can't be arsed.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 5,230

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    This was enforced by law on the Catholic Irish precisely in order to destroy independent Catholic farmers and to reduce them to dependency on English landowners. It was one of many factors that made rural Ireland so vulnerable to the potato blight which caused the potato famine.
    Apart from that though - it all worked out amicably and our countries have been besties since then?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,709
    algarkirk said:

    Foxy said:

    In the pub. Number one, too much lager and not enough real ale being drunk.

    But the (retired) guys in the pub are discussing inflation, and one just quoted Harold Macmillan. Mainly the price of a pint, but also prices more broadly.

    Always interesting when inflation is the subject of conversation.

    Tesco has raised the price of its lunchtime meal deal in the latest example of rising food prices in the UK.

    The price of a main, snack and drink has gone up from £3.60 to £3.85 for Clubcard holders from Thursday. Customers who do not have a loyalty card will see the price rise from £4 to £4.25.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyr7renp51o

    For years it was £3.
    We Northerners have two metrics to measure inflation, the price of a meal deal and the price of Freddos.
    I find it simpler to divide all prices by 3, then consider whether that is a reasonable price.

    It takes me back to the middle eighties.
    Try that with a pint in the pub when you started drinking in 1972 when it was 14p in London. (By the inflation calculator, a London pint should now be £1.67)
    The highest I have paid for a pint in a pub is £8.20 in the West End a few weeks ago.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,945

    rcs1000 said:

    Request for PB Beta Testers

    Some of you might have noticed that I've not been posting on PB as often as I used to in the past. There's a reason for that. I've been working on a new project in my spare time called Halbut. It's a play on Hal, But not evil. I've been using many of these voice dictation apps that are out there, and the question I had or I asked myself was: "Was it possible to do something that was significantly more AI-enhanced?" This is what Halbut does.

    There are three modes:

    Transcription:

    You hold down an a hotkey (I like Caps Lock) and it listens and then it transcribes. It's very quick, very effective (of course it uses a fast inference provider on the back-end). In addition, you can set it to clean up the text in terms not just of adding punctuation (which is automatic), but also things like bullet points, paragraphs, removing duplication etc.

    Command Mode:

    You press another hotkey (say Shift-Caps lock), and you give it a command like "Write a paragraph about the dangers of phosphates" for example, and it fills that in. Or "Give me three reasons why you should be suspicious of x y z". In other words, if the ability to insert a sensible, well-written stuff into your emails or letters (and I hope not PB posts).

    Question Model:

    Another hotekey (Ctrl-Caps Lock in my case) and you just ask it a quick question like "You know, what's the best library to do this?" or "Who's the president of Ethiopia?" or whatever, and it just speaks it back to you. The idea is that by enabling you to ask quick questions without taking your hands off the keyboard, it makes you more productive.

    Anyway, I'll be launching this firstly for Windows, and then hopefully Mac and Linux. I'm looking for Windows beta testers for now. It is completely free (for now). It'll probably be free for transcription (with limits), and $5/month for all the features.

    Send me an email if you want to beta test, and you will probably get access next week. (Once I get the hang of packaging up Windows applications for distribution.)
    ChatGPT told me to say:

    "Sounds really exciting — congratulations on getting Halbut this far! The three-mode approach feels both intuitive and practical, especially the way you’ve integrated command and question handling alongside transcription. I can definitely see how that could streamline a lot of day-to-day tasks.

    I’d be happy to help test the Windows beta. Please let me know what’s the best way to send feedback (bugs, feature requests, usability notes, etc.) once I get access.

    Looking forward to trying it out and seeing how it develops!"

    But I can't be arsed.
    We are all betas on PB, apart from Leon, of course, the alpha.

  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 5,230

    Do your own vox pops with your mates. Labour are loathed. Tories ditto

    I don't get the feeling from my inner or wider circle that they are loathed. "Bafflingly rubbish" is maybe closer to the mark. Just a general puzzlement at how bad they are at the basic comms, policy, effectiveness.

    Might well turn into loathing. But for now it's more like watching someone try and do the 100m hurdles with a giant dumbbell tied to their foot. Without the comedic "It's a Knockout!" voiceover.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,796
    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    This was enforced by law on the Catholic Irish precisely in order to destroy independent Catholic farmers and to reduce them to dependency on English landowners. It was one of many factors that made rural Ireland so vulnerable to the potato blight which caused the potato famine.
    Apart from that though - it all worked out amicably and our countries have been besties since then?
    Time, an apology, and the diplomatic and language skills of the late Monarch have gone a long way.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    DoctorG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
    As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
    Coo, someone thinks that primogeniture in the male line is still a thing.

    Be far more likely to need to split the farm anyway to share it amongst the children.

    Splitting would in any case be necessary in Scotland unless there were absurd amounts of cash in the estate over and beyond the farm (far more than IHT would need). There the females and other males have rights, not forgetting the surviving spouse if any.
    @HYUFD saying all you do is pass it to your eldest son is simply an astounding observation

    I have two sons and a daughter and they will share our inheritance equally
    Yes well if you split up a farm equally amongst several children, soon over several generations there would no longer be a farm viable enough to keep going
    Does France do something like this? Think the average acreage is smaller over there, albeit on decent land
    They also have been hit by large scale agriculture 'The census showed French farms had gotten bigger on average, rising to 69 hectares in 2020 from 55 hectares in 2010 as land from the closed farms was folded into rival businesses.'
    https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20211210-france-loses-20-percent-of-farms-as-large-scale-agriculture-gains-ground
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,684
    edited August 21

    HYUFD said:

    DoctorG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.

    Blair:
    Bank of England independence
    Devolution
    Northern Ireland peace process
    House of Lords reform
    Human Rights Act
    Minimum wage legislation
    Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools.
    New Deal for the unemployed
    Student finance reform
    Referendum on London government
    Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
    Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.

    Sir Keir Starmer
    Tax rise on NI
    Creation of Great British Energy
    Strategic Defence Review
    Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut
    Proposed then reversed welfare reform

    Where are the changes?

    Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
    Nor has anyone.

    There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
    No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
    No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.

    Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.

    Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
    Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.

    Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
    Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
    Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
    It’s called retiring. Let your offspring have the ownership of the farm. You can step back, advise, muck in if you want. The idea that you have hand it over on your death bed is weird.
    If there is one thing stifling the ag industry, its the volume of elderly farmers retaining control, often full control of their business assets, right down to every payment the business makes, well into their 70s 80s and beyond when there are enthusiastic members of family keen and involved in the business.

    In many cases, the individuals in charge are long past being fit to work with livestock or machinery, which is why we now have an average age of 59 for farmers

    It doesn't happen on such a wide scale in any other industry, except maybe US presidents

    I can see why the government want to encourage transfer of ownership to younger generations in good time.

    The current changes and push to incentivise renewables/SFI/forestry means large chunks of UK farmland will be owned by foreign investment companies. Farming is finding out how the steel and coal industries felt in the 80s and 90s, rationalisation. The result will be a lot fewer farmers, amalgamation and more farm managers

    I suspect the Chancellor is eyeing up the 7 year rule for IHT and considering options. £500 million is not a lot of money coming in from the farm IHT change, and it will take a long time before it starts to funnel through to the treasury in any quantity
    Which will be a disaster, handing over much of our food supply to foreign companies, see the steel industry lesson where only today the government has had to take control of our third largest steelwork whose owners are based in Singapore.

    It’s only a concern if the U boats start knocking out the ships again. This is globalisation. Why make expensive steel in Redcar when it’s cheaper from elsewhere?
    Given the tariff wars we are heading to it may well be cheaper to produce here and goods produced at home ensure less risk of supply affected by wars, pandemics etc as well
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,676
    ohnotnow said:

    Do your own vox pops with your mates. Labour are loathed. Tories ditto

    I don't get the feeling from my inner or wider circle that they are loathed. "Bafflingly rubbish" is maybe closer to the mark. Just a general puzzlement at how bad they are at the basic comms, policy, effectiveness.

    Might well turn into loathing. But for now it's more like watching someone try and do the 100m hurdles with a giant dumbbell tied to their foot. Without the comedic "It's a Knockout!" voiceover.
    Apart from here and BlueSky, I hardly hear politics discussed at all. The cut to WFA cut through, but not much else. Not even small boats or Gaza.

    The great British Electorate is asleep until the next election is announced IMO.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 5,230
    viewcode said:

    "...Dear CoPilot365. I have the following code in Stata. "logistic myind1 i.mygroup1 i.mygroup2" I have been asked to change it to use the variable "mysite" as a random effect. Note that "mysite" is a categorical variable..."

    logistic myind1 i.mygroup1 i.mygroup2 || mysite:

    :):):)

    And tonight I was asking 'state of the art' anthropic claude opus 4.1 a question about a tool made by anthropic. Including giving the URL to the docs and also turning on the web search feature.

    >> Well, thank you - I guess. But none of that matches the documentation from anthropic. Can you read from URL's? Or do I need to tell you all the details?

    > You're absolutely right - I should check the actual documentation first! Let me fetch the Claude Code hooks documentation to see how this actually works.

    ... almost 15 painful minutes later ...

    > Perfect! Now I understand how Claude Code hooks actually work. Here's the correct approach:

    Meanwhile I'd just done it myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.