RayC

Anyone thinking that the right-wing conspiracy theorists might disappear as a result of Trump's victory can rest easy. Some posts in this thread show that they are still alive and kicking.

You'll just have to bear the pain. The facts often hurt.

"But the UK really doesn't matter much to the US." Ouch! That hurts. Nevertheless, thank you for posting your opinion, which I imagine is held by a sizeable number of your compatriots and, more importantly, seemingly by a succession of US governments (whatever their colour). The UK has a rich cultural, economic and social history and has much to be proud of, but the belief that by acting on its' own in the 21st century, it has any real influence or power in the world is imo delusional. Europe as a whole is a fading force. Imo it can only slow the inevitable decline, and continue to be important, if it acts and moves as one entity. For that reason alone, Brexit was a disaster for the UK and a sizeable body blow for Europe as a whole.

In what way is the following 'nonsense'? What is factually incorrect about the statement? "The EU has preferential trade agreements with 70 nations, and seeks to extend that number. If Trump is true to his word, all imports to the US, irrespective of their origin, will attract tariffs." And 8 years after the referendum result and approaching 5 years after we formally left the EU, what have we got to show for it? Three new deals - Japan, Australia, NZ (deals on terms where the latter two nations can't believe their luck) - but nothing with the US, India or China and no indication that there is likely to be any deals in the foreseeable future. Instead - if we want to continue exporting to our biggest market (the EU) - we now have to effectively implement new and revised EU regulations without having any input into the development of these laws as we had previously. As an added bonus, exporters to the EU have to deal with 'red tape' that never formally existed. Yes, everything's been peachy since we left.

Absolute tosh as usual. The EU has preferential trade agreements with 70 nations, and seeks to extend that number. If Trump is true to his word, all imports to the US, irrespective of their origin, will attract tariffs. See the difference? Even after leaving, the UK could have remained a member of the Single Market and Customs Union but chose not to. A decision that you supported.

In the last polls in 2014 before Russia effectively occupied the Donbass region, the majority of inhabitants were still in favour of remaining Ukrainian, albeit with a greater degree of autonomy. Never forget that Russia has traditionally been governed in a corrupt and brutal manner.

"Authorities allege that the Saxonian Separatists were planning to establish a regime inspired by National Socialism in parts of eastern Germany, with a blueprint for “governmental and societal structures” that would emulate elements of the Nazi era. Authorities revealed chilling plans for ethnic cleansing, noting that “unwanted groups of people are supposed to be removed from the area by means of ethnic cleansing.” Most people would classify the Tories as either centre-right or right-of-centre. You'd be happy to vote for them if they put these type of policies in their manifesto?

Labour promised to build 1.5m more homes within the lifetime of this parliament, so it's obviously far too early to judge whether that promise has been kept. Labour also recognised that one of the stumbling blocks to building more homes was the complexity and lead-times involved in obtaining planning permission. To that end, they promised to immediately update the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and to that end, an updated draft document was produced. The consultation period for comments on this document ended in late September and I imagine that an updated finalised version will be made available soon. This document, amongst others, will provide input to a new Planning and Infrastructure bill which will be placed before parliament. To answer your questions directly: Has land been purchased and building plans developed for all 1.5m new homes? Almost certainly not and completely unrealistic to think that they would have been. I imagine that the building of the individual homes are all at different stages of the process. * Not accountable or responsible for 14 years of government mismanagement ..... *

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.