RayC

A very long article but imo quite damning. https://www.thetimes.com/article/40de6e15-0456-49cb-988c-1ec39518cef9?shareToken=19c36968b75de5c2d489b3c671424135

You're welcome😉 If the monarchy were to be abolished, I don't see why those figures should be affected greatly. Millions visit Versailles and the other former Royal Palaces in France annually, even though there is no longer a monarchy there.

I guess that this is directed at me? 14 years of largely Tory mismanagement and Labour are meant to correct everything in the space of 6 months. No accountability or responsibility but no more than I've grown to expect from most Tory posters on this board. "Whataboutery"? If you say so. That's my hat-trick. Get in.⚽

I've no idea. Perhaps you're right? All the more reason to send him your plan. Fair play. It's a proposal but, unfortunately, not a solution. 2/3rds of illegal immigrants originate from 5 countries (Iran, Iraq, Albania, Syria and Afghanistan). https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/ (Figure 5). We don't send aid to the governments of Iran, Iraq or (I think?) Albania, so that leaves Afghanistan and Syria. Many of the illegal immigrants from these countries will be genuine refugees fleeing persecution and not economic migrants so, personally, I have no problem with them. You and some others probably disagree. However, notwithstanding the above, doing as you suggest would only recoup relatively small amounts as direct payments to overseas governments are not that large https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/britains-foreign-aid-where-does-the-money-go (see 1st graphic). In conclusion, implementing your proposal will not recoup the cost of abolishing farmers IHT. It was an oversight on my part. I know nothing about the science behind carbon capture, so have no idea whether the benefits claimed for it are valid and verifiable. However, in a previous post I stated that the revenue generated from IHT in 21/22 was £6bn i.e. one tax year. In many instances, you quote costs for projects which accrue over the course of a project i.e. more than one year. For example, the estimated £22bn cost of carbon capture initiatives is spread over 25 years! Similarly, the £11bn figure for climate aid to Africa is spread over the period 2021 to 2026. Puts a rather different perspective on things, wouldn't you agree? I have discussed foreign aid above and in a previous post, and I have nothing to add to my previous comment about aid to Ukraine being money well spent imo.

I live in the UK for 7 months of the year and am currently there. The only delusional retards are those who think that the colour of a person's skin determines their decency and value to society. I posed you a question earlier: You used the phrase 'indigenous people of the UK'. I asked you to define such a person. No reply as yet. Using phrases that you don't understand? Question too difficult for you?

So every Muslim immigrant to the UK believes every word written in the Koran, in the same way that every Christian person in the UK believes every word in the Bible? Such things as female genital mutilation of prepubescent girls and underage marriage are illegal in the UK and perpetrators of such crimes should be prosecuted. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims do not engage in such acts. I'll correct one of my previous comments. All the UK's ills are not caused solely by Muslims. The Express, Mail - and sadly, more and more frequently The Telegraph - would have us believe that they are caused by either the Muslims or the metropolitan elite. All those living in their green and pleasant rural idylls know that.

What a strange analogy? What point are you trying to make?

Very few illegal immigrants arrive in France. They mainly arrive in Greece, Italy and Turkey and these countries can't cope with the numbers. Many say, "not our problem. You sort it out". Well, one way for those countries to sort it out is to not try and prevent these people from leaving their countries. Pretty soon, it becomes Germany's problem, then France's and, eventually, the UK's. Much is said here and elsewhere about how to deal with the problem. 'Smash the trafficking gangs'. Great idea. How? Stop the boats at source? Again, great idea. How? How can the length of the Algerian, Tunisian and Syrian borders be monitored and controlled? Imo the sad truth is that no one has a solution. The best that we can hope for is to stem the tide (no pun intended) and imo that will require Europe-wide co-operation.

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.