RayC

Butler deleted her tweet. It's debatable whether this was due to genuine contrition. In purely political terms, she's a liability. This is a good opportunity for Starmer to get rid of her.

Did you miss this bit, "This freeze extends a trend seen over the past decade, with the Conservative Party having previously frozen LHA for seven of the last twelve years, before briefly increasing rates earlier in 2024". I wonder if 3 of those other 5 years happened to be the election years of '15, '17 and '19? If so, I'm sure that it was purely coincidental.

May be best not to mention broken promises ... https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/tories-conservatives-broken-promises-levelling-up-nhs-housing/

I'd go further. I realise that this is anecdotal evidence, but my experience of living and working in Europe is that, in general, Brits are more accepting of immigrants than most Europeans. No country has ever been free of racists, and the UK is no exception, but the sad thing is that this acceptance of immigrants in the UK is on the wane. Imo newspapers such as the Express and Mail have a lot to answer for.

I agree, and the overwhelming majority of people take precautions in order to mitigate against risk. However, the fact remains that there is no justification for rape even if a person is walking through a 'dodgy' area stark naked.

Although we hold diametrically opposite views of the monarchy, I agree with everything you say except for the bit about tourists travelling to the UK to meet members of the Royal Family. Surely only the most ardent of (overseas) monarchists would plan a trip with the sole purpose of being part of a royal walkabout and nothing else? The number of such people must be so miniscule as to make no discernable difference to tourist numbers or the revenue generated.

Ignoring the humanitarian argument for overseas aid - something you clearly have no problem in doing - there are concepts in economics known as 'opportunity cost' and 'externality'. Here's a (very) basic overview of these concepts as it is clear that you haven't come across them previously or, if you have, you obviously didn't understand them. If the UK were to withdraw overseas aid, the opportunity cost (in this case, loss) of not providing aid may be that contracts in the country in question - which might otherwise be given to British companies - will instead go to a European or US company. Others might disagree with my classification, but in many ways, I view overseas aid as a form of marketing. Overseas aid might also come with conditions e.g. the UK offering financial aid on condition that the money is spent on tackling a problem where, it just so happens, a British company is the world's leading supplier of the required product. In both these examples, the absolute cost of overseas aid to the donor country is less than it first appeared. Onto externalities: Air pollution is an example of an externality. Take emissions from car exhausts. Unless you are the most extreme climate denier, you will accept that they cause pollution and that pollution has costs (both economic and social). Without intervention, neither the car manufacturers or the consumer would bear this cost. In order to mitigate against/ lessen the effects of the pollution, governments will often therefore either 1) impose regulations - the post-WW2 Clean Air Acts in the UK are a good example of this - and/or 2) levy duties on the producer and/or consumer of the offending product. However, unfortunately, pollution doesn't respect international borders. Switching continents - and notwithstanding the fact that Thailand has plenty of home produced pollution that it ought to do something about - Thailand suffers greatly from air pollution generated in neighbouring countries. Obviously Thailand has no regulatory authority in these countries, so in order to alleviate the problem it might offer economic assistance to the countries in question in an attempt to tackle the problem. There is a whole sub-forum devoted to the war in Ukraine so I will avoid going into detail. Suffice to say that imo the £3bn given in aid to Ukraine is money well spent. "Smashing the gangs" who traffick illegal immigrants is indeed a very good idea. I'm sure that Starmer will be very keen to learn about your cunning plan for doing so. I hope that this has furthered your education in some small way. Unfortunately, I couldn't agree more: There are indeed, some economically illiterate morons.

The revenues gained from Royal estates and properties would not suddenly dry up if the monarchy were to be abolished. One need only look at France for proof of that. What exactly are these (other) "revenues derived from the activities attached to the monarchy"?

On one point, I think that you are being overly generous: Currently, I would imagine that if Republic fielded candidates in a General Election they would have no chance of winning any seats. However, that is not the point. Imo - although it is not flawless - the Republic report does a very good job of puncturing this myth that the Royal Family is somehow a revenue generating machine, that ploughs profits back into the UK - which if the institution did not exist - would otherwise somehow be 'lost': You are, of course, welcome to accept and believe the alternative view which the likes of Brand Communications - a PR company - peddles about the monarchy. I also agree that, currently, republicans are very much in the minority in the UK. I hope that, in time, this situation will change.

Or alternatively https://www.republic.org.uk/halfbillionroyals

Your first sentence is correct: "Nobody should be raped". There is no "... but".

Who are - and what defines - these "indigenous Brits"? Direct descendants of Iron-age Celts? 1st century Vikings? 5th century Anglo-Saxons? 11th century Normans? 16th century Hugonauts? 20th century Afro-Caribbeans? All of the above?

Safeguards are in place to prevent agricultural land being sold off and used for non-agricultural purposes. https://www.basearchitecture.co.uk/news/agricultural-land-planning-permission/#:~:text=You can apply for full,of achieving permission are slim. You pose an interesting question: Do we need more farms? Short answer is, 'I don't know'. A more nuanced answer is that it all depends what criteria you use to measure things. I'd never heard of the Global Food Security Index until 20 minutes ago, but based on this index the answer appears to be 'no' as the UK scores rather well in comparison to other nations. Of course, it could also mean that 95% of nations don't devote enough resources to agriculture🤷 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Food_Security_Index

There is nothing economically illiterate about this policy change or IHT in general. IHT raised £6bn in 2021/22, so if it is abolished that revenue will either have to be raised from another source or public services cut by that amount. The market will determine the value of agricultural land based upon demand, supply, location, yield, etc. If there is excess supply, the price will drop as will the IHT liability. There is nothing inevitable about a farm having to be sold. Each case will be different. In any event, I'd suggest that if the hier to an estate worth more than £1m+ is that emotionally attached to their property, then they will find a way of preserving their way of life. There is no reason to suppose, or evidence to suggest, that any farmland which is sold will not be continued to be used as agricultural land. Rather than becoming uneconomic as you infer, it is just as likely that a larger landowner could buy it and reap economics of scale, thus making it more profitable. You might not like them, but there is nothing intrinsically "mean or cruel" in this government's policies. Like all governments before it, the current government is pursuing policies which it considers to be in the country's best interests.

So what are you saying? The only people who should be allowed to run for political office in the UK should be 'pure blooded' Brits? How are you defining that? An individual would presumably need to trace their lineage back to the Iron Age. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Britons#:~:text=The Britons (*Pritanī%2C Latin,and Bretons (among others).

Why give them lifejackets? They cost money. In fact, before anyone drowns the RN should try to recoup the cost of sending the gunboat and the cost of the used armaments from the victims or their families.

And that fact is still reflected in the rules governing IHT even after this change. Those inheriting farming assets will pay a maximum of 20% of the value of those assets, the rest of the UK population will pay up to 40% on inherited assets. We may well need more agricultural product, but it is purely subjective at this point to suggest that family farmers will be driven out of business. In any event, if the farm/land is profitable it will be brought by others and continue to be farmed. Again, there is no evidence to support the idea that this policy change will negatively affect farming output. However, I agree that there could be concessions put into place - such as an extended payment duration - to allow those who inherit farms, and who wish to continue farming, to do so without having to sell the farm to meet their IHT obligations.

Most farmers are probably honest people who work very hard. As a business, farming requires knowledge and expertise; it can be risky and the profit margins can be small. I don't doubt any of that, but those comments could equally be applied to any number of workers/ business owners in any number of industries. Those attributes do not make farmers or farming unique. As I have stated all along, I accept that farming is an essential industry and that, due to the nature and structure of the industry, it requires 'special' treatment, which it will still receive after this revision to IHT rules. I doubt that we will reach any sort of agreement as we differ fundamentally in our respective view of this change. You view it as "mean spirited and cruel" aimed at individuals who "do not make billions of pounds in profits". I view it as correcting an overly generous benefit given to individuals who own a business in a particular industry whilst raising a not insignificant sum of £1bn for the Exchequer. The facts are that this change will only affect the estates of individuals with assets >£1m. Less than 85% of the UK's population fall into that category. I would suggest that compared to the majority of the population, such individuals can therefore be categorised as 'wealthy'. I'll give 'Clarksons Farm' a try, although I'll admit to an unfavourable bias towards the show at the outset as I can't stand the bloke.

One estimate is that the change will raise £1b which is not insignificant. It's a balanced article. You cherry pick the section on the ability of hiers to pay the tax, I can just as easily quote the head of the IFS, Paul Johnson who is hardly a raving Communist, who states that only the most valuable of farms will be affected by the change. To state the blindingly obvious, there will be winners and losers in any budget. Imo farmers have previously benefitted from overly generous exemptions when it comes to IHT. This new policy corrects this discrepancy. Is the revised policy perfect? No. Can it be amended to work better in practice e.g. adjust the period over which farmers have to pay the tax, almost certainly. Nevertheless, imo this change is welcome.

Badenoch is a British citizen. She has been actively engaged in UK politics over the past decade. Where is there any evidence to support the implied contention that she may not have acted in what she considers to be the UK's best interests over this period?

This article addresses many of the points which you both raise. There are also two informative articles in the FT about this issue, although I think that they are behind a paywall. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rlk0d2vk2o.amp

Point out where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted your comment(s). It's not my fault if some refuse to acknowledge the flaws in their reasoning when they are highlighted to them.

Well then perhaps you should restate your comments in such a way that ambiguity and misinterpretation can be avoided. If you have ascertained that I believe that IHT should be applied as equitably as possible then you would be correct.

You are missing the point. In some posters' eyes, conspiracy theories which show the left-wing in a negative light are fundamental truths and require no further justification. On the other hand, conspiracy theories which show right-wing causes in a negative light are, by definition, false.

So all woman who are flattered by the attention of a Lothario are 'asking for it', have only themselves to blame and can't have been raped?