Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Yep. Badenoch actually believes the Tories got ejected because they weren't right-wing enough. So if she ever gets in we'll see austerity-plus as she shrinks the state even further. At least with Jenrick there was the chance that he wouldn't because he was just saying anything to get elected (just like JD* and our own Keir). You know where you are with Badenoch. Unfortunately it's a very nasty place.

There is a danger that she'll out-charisma Starmer though. I think he can handle her but there is a risk. He needs to stay aloof.

* for Viz fans, I don't mean Salinger or Sports .

[Sandydragon]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Born again Christians can be more Christian than those who have held belief all their lives.

Ok not the greatest comparison I know but I wouldn’t underestimate the depth of Jenricks beliefs just because he assumed them more recently.

Neither is fit to be PM and this feels like the lurch to the right that the Tories felt they had to do before common sense breaks out again.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Born again Christians can be more Christian than those who have held belief all their lives.

Ok not the greatest comparison I know but I wouldn’t underestimate the depth of Jenricks beliefs just because he assumed them more recently.

Neither is fit to be PM and this feels like the lurch to the right that the Tories felt they had to do before common sense breaks out again.

But how much common sense is left in the party? Seems like most of it has been driven out, outnumbered 2 to 1 amongst the MPs . . . probably far less in the members.

[Sandydragon]

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Born again Christians can be more Christian than those who have held belief all their lives.

Ok not the greatest comparison I know but I wouldn’t underestimate the depth of Jenricks beliefs just because he assumed them more recently.

Neither is fit to be PM and this feels like the lurch to the right that the Tories felt they had to do before common sense breaks out again.

But how much common sense is left in the party? Seems like most of it has been driven out, outnumbered 2 to 1 amongst the MPs . . . probably far less in the members.

Anything is of course possible, but conservatives members quite like winning elections. After a rightward swing post 1997 they returned to a more central position once they realised they were getting battered by Labour. I think the idea of capturing a lot of UKIP support is a key factor at the moment. When it becomes clear that won’t produce a majority, they will start to think more sensibly.

[Puja]

Born again Christians can be more Christian than those who have held belief all their lives.

Ok not the greatest comparison I know but I wouldn’t underestimate the depth of Jenricks beliefs just because he assumed them more recently.

Neither is fit to be PM and this feels like the lurch to the right that the Tories felt they had to do before common sense breaks out again.

But how much common sense is left in the party? Seems like most of it has been driven out, outnumbered 2 to 1 amongst the MPs . . . probably far less in the members.

Anything is of course possible, but conservatives members quite like winning elections. After a rightward swing post 1997 they returned to a more central position once they realised they were getting battered by Labour. I think the idea of capturing a lot of UKIP support is a key factor at the moment. When it becomes clear that won’t produce a majority, they will start to think more sensibly.

The problem will be if Labour continue to flounder - Badenoch could claim her approach is being successful just from the polls turning against Labour and traditional Conservative voters coming back. Not as though there's any other political home for centre-right people if Labour fuck things up.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

But how much common sense is left in the party? Seems like most of it has been driven out, outnumbered 2 to 1 amongst the MPs . . . probably far less in the members.

Anything is of course possible, but conservatives members quite like winning elections. After a rightward swing post 1997 they returned to a more central position once they realised they were getting battered by Labour. I think the idea of capturing a lot of UKIP support is a key factor at the moment. When it becomes clear that won’t produce a majority, they will start to think more sensibly.

The problem will be if Labour continue to flounder - Badenoch could claim her approach is being successful just from the polls turning against Labour and traditional Conservative voters coming back. Not as though there's any other political home for centre-right people if Labour fuck things up.

Puja

Agreed, there are two obvious ways the Tories might not drift back to the centre - 1) Badenoch is at least moderately successful in the polls/next election, or 2) if she fails, the Tories succumb to the temptation of the easy way back to power, by letting Farage into the party (with dire consequences for the party and the UK). If neither happens, eventually (maybe after another leader from the right) they might find their way back to moderation (although I can't see them returning to non-Brexiteer moderation in decades, if ever).

[Sandydragon]

Yeah. If Labour bomb and the conservatives can say cut the current majority in half, perhaps via some Faustian pact with Farage, then that might be enough to keep her going. The Conservatives were forced to accept a more moderate approach after they got a hiding repeatedly. If Labour allows them to reoccupy the centre ground then that might just happen.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Apologies for this. Not sure what the Welsh could possibly see in this dickhesd but I guess nothing would surprise me these days. (Caveat - its WOL, so could be completely made up)

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... l-30319278

[Puja]

Apologies for this. Not sure what the Welsh could possibly see in this dickhesd but I guess nothing would surprise me these days. (Caveat - its WOL, so could be completely made up)

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... l-30319278

Same thing as Trump, I guess - he is now the agent promising "C H A N G E" and people are fed up with the situation that they're in, so they're willing to take a flyer on a fuckwit rather than opt for a different shade of "more of the same".

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Well, they don't call her Goodenoch.

Despite her other faults, she does have a hilarious name.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

[Which Tyler]

As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.

If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.

In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.



#YourBodyYourRules

[Puja]

Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.

Puja

[Banquo]

Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.

Puja

He's in good company in parliament.....

[Son of Mathonwy]

Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.

Puja

Possibly. Although he is a dyed in the wool Blairite, funded by private health and mates with Alan Milburn, which might make him look that way.

[Son of Mathonwy]

My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.

[Puja]

My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.

- "Classic BBC. Classic. Saying it's a *fact* that I bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax."
- "You told the Sunday Times in 2021 that that's why you bought it."

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14hCHJ2wZf/

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.

- "Classic BBC. Classic. Saying it's a *fact* that I bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax."
- "You told the Sunday Times in 2021 that that's why you bought it."

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14hCHJ2wZf/

Puja

Quality stuff. Rarely has someone been so owned by a journalist:

[Stom]

Yeah, this just needs some simple clarification from Labour and 80%+ of people will be in favor

[Mikey Brown]

Christ, he’s such a twat. The painful part is knowing people are sharing that with “Clarkson owns liberal snowflake reporter with facts and logic” captions.

[Sandydragon]

My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.

Ho hum.

I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.

Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.

Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.

I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.

[Stom]

My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.

Ho hum.

I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.

Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.

Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.

I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.

But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.

[Sandydragon]

My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.

Ho hum.

I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.

Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.

Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.

I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.

But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.

Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.

Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.

Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.

[Puja]

Ho hum.

I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.

Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.

Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.

I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.

But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.

Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.

Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.

Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.

But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... es-385977/

Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.

While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.

The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.

Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.

Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.

Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.

But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... es-385977/

Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.

While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.

The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.

Puja

I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.

You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.

This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.