|
|
Post by Mercian on Jul 2, 2024 17:23:05 GMT
In addition to the insanity of making Trump a king the U.S. supreme court has assumed huge additional powers for themselves designed to undermine democratic presidents. While they have stated that a president has absolute immunity for " official " acts what amounts to an official act is for the supreme court to define. Consequently Donald Trump locking up or assassinating his political rivals could be considered an official presidential act and therefore effectively not a crime but if Joe Biden carried out the most minor infringement if the SC decided that presidential immunity didn't apply he could be prosecuted. There's never been an occasion where a president was likely to be criminally prosecuted for his actions in office in over 240 years , other than Trump. There's only one purpose in this legislation it's to allow Trump to be a dictator. I agree it's a catastrophe for the US but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has referred back to lower courts the decision about which actions were official and which not. Chief Justice Roberts has given some guidance but it's still going to be something argued in a lower court. It's expected that there will be a hearing with both prosectuors and defence to thrash out what can be presented under the Jan 6th trial. That's just a correction to your post steve but I 100% agree with you that it's a f***ing disaster. I wouldn't be at all surprised that if Trunp wins in November there will be talks about secession from some of the blue states, particularly California, which is as big as many countries. (156,000 sq miles -same size as Paraguay and 39m popuplation.) I seem to remember that its GDP is higher than most countries too. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercian on Jul 2, 2024 17:29:07 GMT
*** new polling thread alert *** I can't see it. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 8,166
|
Post by neilj on Jul 2, 2024 17:35:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2024 17:51:06 GMT
*** new polling thread alert *** I can't see it. You probably weren’t invited. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 13,463
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 17:57:03 GMT
One obvious route is through recycling asset values upon death. As things stand, if you plan it properly in the UK you could leave a billion pounds to your chosen successor, tax free. The glaring hole in inheritance tax is the ability to give away as much as you like to anyone,so long as you do it 7 years before death. And apart from that a couple can leave 750,000 to anyone they like tax free and another 250,000 to their descendants. So you can give away most of it tax free in your lifetime, just keeping your last million or two for old age. Its a rather insane vast giveaway to the very rich. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 13,463
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 18:23:42 GMT
Danny - do you ever take any notice of what other people say? Always. I am definitely at the bottom of the market, and Id suspect the reason sales have stalled is that so is much of the public. My central point was that the reason we have introduced electric vehicles at horrendous development costs is to stop burning fossil fuels. But thus far we have saved hardly any fossil fuel usage in the UK... because the power stations are still burning it to power the cars. The difference in mileage costs is mostly about tax on fuel but not on electricty, and nothing to do with reducing co2 pollution. Whats the point of subsidising going electric with tax breaks if it doesnt save CO2 emissions? (there is another issue here, is it better to tax whatever fuel is used so as to deliberately discourage so much travel and thus fuel usage of whatever sort?). Inevitably, government WILL impose tax on electric motoring eventually at a comparable rate to what is now on fuelled vehicles. In the long run it will not be cheaper. Absolutely not. Electricity used for vehicles is EXTRA electricity we would never have needed had we not chosen to switch to electric vehicles. This means we have had to generate all the EXTRA electricity they need, and we do that by burning EXTRA fossil fuels. If there were no cars to charge demand would be less and we would stop burning fossil. Yeah, thats why we had subsidised sales of diesel vehicles...until someone realised they were polluting in a different way. Now the fact is we really havnt saved much if any fossil consumption by the electric switch so far. Granted, had labour remained in power for the last 14 years then we would by now be generating much more renewables and we might by now be saving the fossils. And indeed have had less surge in electricty costs post covid. But of course con knew better. As I just wrote, the idiot conservatives stopped the switch to renewables generation by removing subsidies and making planning for onshore wind virtually impossible. Which was first pursuing their goal of cutting taxes and second not spoiling the view of their rural voters. Similarly, nuclear energy as just ordered by the con government is not an alternative way to switch to renewables. Con declined to order new nuclear when they came to power because they understood this, and that it is very expensive. They have only ordered it now because their failure to boost renewables over the last 14 years means we risk running out of power. Though it wouldnt amaze me if an ex conservative MP in the future finds a lucrative job advising a nuclear power company. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
On the contrary…
Posts: 8,719
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 2, 2024 18:33:14 GMT
(there is another issue here, is it better to tax whatever fuel is used so as to deliberately discourage so much travel and thus fuel usage of whatever sort?). Inevitably, government WILL impose tax on electric motoring eventually at a comparable rate to what is now on fuelled vehicles. In the long run it will not be cheaper. . Theres an argument advanced by some, that there is a goal amongst some to make car ownership something of a luxury affair. Is this a conspiracy theory? You decide! (But if we watch the trends in car ownership, and if the costs keep growing…) Similarly, nuclear energy as just ordered by the con government is not an alternative way to switch to renewables. Con declined to order new nuclear when they came to power because they understood this, and that it is very expensive. They have only ordered it now because their failure to boost renewables over the last 14 years means we risk running out of power. Though it wouldnt amaze me if an ex conservative MP in the future finds a lucrative job advising a nuclear power company That’s the thing really Danny: there are potentially much much safer and cheaper and more efficient ways of doing nuclear fission, which we could’ve been exploring years ago. (As I used to argue on the old board. We might still make something of it, although at the moment we seem to be going more for fusion) |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 13,463
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 18:49:44 GMT
Interesting poll, people were asked how they'd vote on Thursday if the party leaders were as they were in 2019. The results are a Conservative lead of 6 points over the Labour Party x.com/LukeTryl/status/1808124302874620219'Suggests to two things 1) Starmer is clearly more than just a lucky general benefitting from Tory mistakes, the changing of the Labour brand has mattered 2) Boris Johnson probably could have capped the Reform vote down, but not eliminated it.' This polling is very hard to reconcile with the current situation. It implies that the only thing which matters is the changes of leaders. Whereas the potholes in the roads would be just the same under Johnsons, NHS waiting same, inflation same, Brexit outcome same... and everything else. Its not credible the vote outcome would be as close as they suggest. It might be respondants are imagining an ideal Johnson and an evil Corbyn and that therefore outcomes would have changed, but honestly there is nothing to suggest the general issues would be different now with eg Johnson as PM and Sunak as chancellor. Otherwise, their polling sample has to be very screwed. Which might not be encouraging for the general reliability of polling. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 13,463
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 18:55:52 GMT
Not many polls so far this week, suspect most if not all will be released tomorrow Be a bit late on Friday |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 13,463
|
Post by Danny on Jul 2, 2024 19:00:34 GMT
my understanding is that the Supreme Court has referred back to lower courts the decision about which actions were official and which not. Chief Justice Roberts has given some guidance but it's still going to be something argued in a lower court. But it will eventually be appealed back to the supreme court if someone doesnt like the decisions. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 14,553
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2024 19:39:02 GMT
In how low can you go news. The Tory election campaign in Torbay has accused the lib dem candidate Steve Darling of pretending to be blind for electoral purposes. Darling has been registered blind since a child in 1986.  |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
On the contrary…
Posts: 8,719
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 2, 2024 22:44:58 GMT
Danny Regarding cars as becoming increasingly luxury items, just came across this headline: “ Sadiq Khan is extending London’s congestion charge to all zero-emission vehicles from the end of next year.” “The move, which will extend the £15-a-day tax on motoring to battery-powered electric vehicles from Christmas Day 2025, was widely condemned on Tuesday.”
|
|
