Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 13, 2024 17:56:39 GMT
A farmer will have a business that on average for a farm say of 600 acres that gives him/her a profit of about 60- 80 thousand pounds a year out of which the will have to pay back yearly borrowing and I never met a farmer who wasn’t in hock to the bank and also to tide them through the 3-4 months a year that farms traditionally make no money at all. The land on the other hand may well be worth several million depending on its location. On the death of the Farmer it’s very unlikely there going to have the odd million or two hanging around to pay death duties so the farmers children will have no option to sale the land which no doubt be brought up by some cooperation or other looking to either build on it or hold on to it so it increases in value. In any case the land will pass out of food production. Why on earth would it pass out of food production? Even people who want a stately home surrounded with rolling acres need to do something with that land to maintain its amenity value, and the obvious solution is to farm it. Always has been. I agree a commercial business is far more likely to make a good return on the asset value than a farm. But there is no reason to assume a farmer selling up means his land will cease to be used agriculturally. If anything its more likely to continue the exact same purpose than are commercial premises and equipment. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 18:01:11 GMT
. Yes, it might involve some extra travel, but it isn’t necessarily impossible. When I worked in a music department in FE, people travelled to it from further-flung parts of the county. But thats not at all the same as bussing half the children in the county deliberately miles away from their homes. Well, it depends on the locale. If you’re in a city, there may be a lot of schools nearby. If you in a little village, there may only be the one school anyway. Not all schools outside the wealthier catchments will necessarily be that much worse, some might be better. Some parents might decide it’s worth the trip, some might not. Some children might not need to be bussed, the preferred school might be on the way to work for one of the parents. Or you could get a lift with a fellow pupil’s parent, like I used to do. You might get creative, and have children only going to another school half the time, for certain subjects or facilities. And when we had more grammar schools, mightn’t pupils then have to go to school further away? But having said all this, if we are entering the era of personal AI tutors it might become a bit moot… (You might have a John Major-style property price correction… might affect your re-election chances, but hey…) |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 13, 2024 18:07:48 GMT
One owner of a small group of hotels was today explaining that he has shelved plans to expand the business . He now has to cut back on staff and prepare to fund new taxes after he dies in order not to have to sell parts of the business to pay tax. The only reason to pay taxes is if he does not trust his kids to have control of the business handed to them now. And if he doesnt trust them to have that now, he surely can't expect them to carry on running it after he is dead anyway? In as much as it encourages people to hand on assets a bit earlier, it might well revitalise the economy. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 18:16:44 GMT
You could do a mix of things. You could do some income tax, you could do a bit more inheritance tax on non-productive properties, you could make the inheritance tax on business a bit more gradual, you could do a bit more money printing… I am not seeking alternatives to the entire 40 billion! I would just like to take the edge off for the lower paid taking a hit I'm just surprised you are defending inherited wealth and privilege, which already has a big tax free allowance of 1-3m pounds How much would you like rich kids to inherit tax free? oh you’re back to the usual game of repeating a point I already addressed. I said that you could tax it, but more gradually so you don’t have to ditch a functioning business. Meanwhile you are still ok with what is happening to some of the the lower paid… |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 13, 2024 18:17:37 GMT
Nonsense, the average salary in the UK is about 35k per annum. The average private school fee for a boarder is 44k per annum. No one in my background could ever have afforded that. Your catchment point is another bit of quibbling flak you always throw up to avoid having to make a stand on anything. Found a stat that only about 10-15% of private pupils are boarders. Boarding costs about double a day pupil. So you can perhaps see that if a couple are both earning your £35K, then one salary would cover the fees for one child. Another popular strategy is the inheritance when granny dies, and a third that kids only go selectively to private school. ie in the critical GCSE exam years instead of the awful state school they would be sent to. Sixth form education is easier to finess in the state system because you are allowed to choose where to go if willing to travel, and so a good chunk can find a decent school for free. Parents often send their kids privately only after experiencing how bad local state provision is. Although the stat is about 6% of kids being educated privately, that could well mean 12% or more educated partly privately. So a lot more interested voting relatives than it seems. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 18:26:43 GMT
That’s interesting. Is it cooler because of evaporative effects? leftieliberal might be more up on it than me: he drew attention to the importance of the oceans as a CO2 sink a while ago when we were considering methods of carbon capture After long hesitation. Plankton are the biggest CO2 capturers and the biggest O2 providers. Unlike trees that use up as much O2 as they produced in their life and produce as much CO2 as they captured in their life when rotting away (unless it happens in a swamp or processed instead of letting it rot away), plankton are eaten or sink to the depth. So there is no reverse process like in the case of trees. I wondered how much effect plankton had. A related thing I read about a while back is the use of genetically engineered algae to capture carbon and turn it into carbon-neutral biofuels… |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Nov 13, 2024 18:33:02 GMT
@ c-a-r-f-r-e-w 'I am not opposed to taxes from the better off. Reeves for example could have raised more income tax on higher earners instead of the NI thing that will indirectly affect lower earners' Okay, so now we're getting somewhere a ' 1p increase in the higher rate would raise £1.3bn in 2022/23' Reeves budget increased taxes by £40b, you'd need to increase the higher rate of tax by 30% to pay for it Would you be OK with that, I believe in redistributive taxes, but even I would baulk at that We have a huge public debt in this country with public services in dire need of substantial investment. Taxes need to increase, that burden needs to be borne by those most able to afford it Why not - at least - return to the 60% top rate of Income Tax we experienced under Thatcher 1979 - 1988? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 18:40:43 GMT
There is also a broader point: should we focus on diminishing assets, or helping people build them up. Obviously big disparities might not be desirable, but do you want to keep reducing the number who have assets or aiming for as many as possible to have them? Well thats a really good and relevant question. I cant turn the tv news on or listen to a R4 phone in on the Budget without yet another owner of a family business trying to explain that in families the business asset isn't like shares in a listed company which are bought and sold all the time. Where the business asset is commoditised and traded on a for the purpose market. A family business asset gets passed down the generations in order to keep the business going. One owner of a small group of hotels was today explaining that he has shelved plans to expand the business . He now has to cut back on staff and prepare to fund new taxes after he dies in order not to have to sell parts of the business to pay tax. I dont think we have bottomed the extent to which Reeves' Budget will have damaging effects on companies like this yet( though it seems clear that it will NOT be pro-growth ). Just been reading financial adviser websites touting for business to help these people plan. One interesting comment was concern about whether banks will review their lending criteria for family businesses. She has opened a Pandora's Box. And if the suggestion from PMQs analysis today is correct-that they will have to concede a u-turn on NICs for GPs ( kudos to Davey & Badenoch) , then there will be a queue of Private Sector providers of State Health & Social care asking for assistance too-Pharmacies/Care Homes/Hospices etc. After which the badly affected Private Sector ( eg hospitality )will ask why they are less deserving . Yeah, it’s currently more than I can get my head around. A particular reason I am thinking about it though, is the desirability of keeping an asset under your own or your family’s control, to make the best of it for others. Because when I set up or expanded recording studios in education, it could get handed over to God knows who. You put all that work in, and then it can be a bit of a lottery what happens. Also, I couldn’t use the studio to get the most out of it because I didn’t have enough control. You couldn’t do nighttime sessions for example. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 13, 2024 18:56:35 GMT
Turk
I appreciate your farming connections and I'm not a farmer, however I did live on one as a kid and worked on it part time s o I'm not entirely unfamiliar with farming life.
The average size UK family farm is around 260 acres a 600 acre farm is by English standards really big it would cost around £7 million to purchase and while of course it varies a return on such a sizable farm is likely to be around £200,000 a year not £80,000
|
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 13, 2024 18:57:50 GMT
Can we get Mercian to go round to Carfrew's house to check he's not being held against his will and chained to his keyboard!  |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 13, 2024 19:01:31 GMT
Turk I appreciate your farming connections and I'm not a farmer, however I did live on one as a kid and worked on it part time s o I'm not entirely unfamiliar with farming life. The average size UK family farm is around 260 acres a 600 acre farm is by English standards really big it would cost around £7 million to purchase and while of course it varies a return on such a sizable farm is likely to be around £200,000 a year not £80,000 "In 2021/22, the average Farm Business Income (FBI) across all UK farm types, at current prices, was £72,000 compared to £46,500 in 2020/21." gov.uk |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 19:03:40 GMT
Can we get Mercian to go round to Carfrew's house to check he's not being held against his will and chained to his keyboard! It’s not my fault if I get a lot of interest. People even want to know the details of my background, what newspapers I read, am I aware that most CO2 is captured in the top 2 mm of seawater and what about other ways to reflect sunlight, do I know about the paper talking about climate myths in the Seventies, what alternate tax plans would I suggest, it’s a bacteria not a virus etc. and much much more!… I’m currently using iPads sans keyboards. More than one as they seem to run out of charge! Anyway don’t send mercian round if he hasn’t showered. Send him round Neil’s, he needs a break from all the rebuttalling… |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 13, 2024 19:10:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Nov 13, 2024 19:10:24 GMT
Turk I appreciate your farming connections and I'm not a farmer, however I did live on one as a kid and worked on it part time s o I'm not entirely unfamiliar with farming life. The average size UK family farm is around 260 acres a 600 acre farm is by English standards really big it would cost around £7 million to purchase and while of course it varies a return on such a sizable farm is likely to be around £200,000 a year not £80,000 Almost half of UK farms are under 100 acres. Average size is 88 hectares - ie just under 220 acres. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Nov 13, 2024 19:11:16 GMT
After long hesitation. Plankton are the biggest CO2 capturers and the biggest O2 providers. Unlike trees that use up as much O2 as they produced in their life and produce as much CO2 as they captured in their life when rotting away (unless it happens in a swamp or processed instead of letting it rot away), plankton are eaten or sink to the depth. So there is no reverse process like in the case of trees. I wondered how much effect plankton had. A related thing I read about a while back is the use of genetically engineered algae to capture carbon and turn it into carbon-neutral biofuels… It is bit different scientific development but you re right www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1124302/fullPlankton produce about 20% of the O2, nd to do so they have to use CO2. It was a late 1980s research that I am familiar with, but I didn't follow it up (but disproving would have caught my attention). |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 13, 2024 19:24:08 GMT
Turk I appreciate your farming connections and I'm not a farmer, however I did live on one as a kid and worked on it part time s o I'm not entirely unfamiliar with farming life. The average size UK family farm is around 260 acres a 600 acre farm is by English standards really big it would cost around £7 million to purchase and while of course it varies a return on such a sizable farm is likely to be around £200,000 a year not £80,000 Almost half of UK farms are under 100 acres. Quite a difficult industry to get into as a new starter. Hopefully the Labour policies will rejuvinate UK farming away from consolidation and super farms. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 21:07:56 GMT
I'm just surprised you are defending inherited wealth and privilege, which already has a big tax free allowance of 1-3m pounds How much would you like rich kids to inherit tax free? ... Meanwhile you are still ok with what is happening to some of the the lower paid… Very okay, I assume you are aswell www.bbc.com/news/business-69451108"The wages of three and a half million low-paid workers will increase by more than expected in April 2025. The government has confirmed the National Living Wage paid to over-21s will go up by 6.7% while the National Minimum Wage for 18 to 20-year-olds will see a 16% increase. Separately, almost half a million workers benefit from a higher hourly rate paid voluntarily by some UK businesses called the Real Living Wage, which is also going up" Of course tories and some others on the right will claim it will mean less jobs,exactly as they did when the minimum wage was first introduced, which was found to be bollocx Certainly several of my nephews and nieces in low paid jobs appreciate it and of course there is the rachet effect for those on slightly higher wages I remember some saying the benefits of Brexit would be higher wages to attract people to work, except of course when Labour increases wages for the low paid it suddenly becomes unaffordable As to a hypothetical possibility that NIC increases may at sometime possibly depress wages in the future, most people on low wages would choose the legal certainty of wage increase Labour has given them |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 13, 2024 21:40:43 GMT
There are credible allegations of trafficking for sexual purposes against congressman Matt Gaetz.
So of course
Trump nominates Matt Gaetz as attorney general!
The lunatics are taking over the asylum.
Gaetz is so monumentally unqualified and widely despised across party lines that his nomination may be rejected even by a Republican dominated senate.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 21:44:45 GMT
... Meanwhile you are still ok with what is happening to some of the the lower paid… Very okay, I assume you are aswell www.bbc.com/news/business-69451108"The wages of three and a half million low-paid workers will increase by more than expected in April 2025. The government has confirmed the National Living Wage paid to over-21s will go up by 6.7% while the National Minimum Wage for 18 to 20-year-olds will see a 16% increase. Separately, almost half a million workers benefit from a higher hourly rate paid voluntarily by some UK businesses called the Real Living Wage, which is also going up" Of course tories and some others on the right will claim it will mean less jobs,exactly as they did when the minimum wage was first introduced, which was found to be bollocx Certainly several of my nephews and nieces in low paid jobs appreciate it and of course there is the rachet effect for those on slightly higher wages I remember some saying the benefits of Brexit would be higher wages to attract people to work, except of course when Labour increases wages for the low paid it suddenly becomes unaffordable As to a hypothetical possibility that NIC increases may at sometime possibly depress wages in the future, most people on low wages would choose the legal certainty of wage increase Labour has given them Yes, I wasn’t complaining about those who might well benefit. We shall see what happens to others. I’m not sure how it all pans out. Even if it doesn’t result in a loss of jobs overall, it might hit particular sectors harder, like hospitality? Hopefully you are right… |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Nov 13, 2024 21:49:04 GMT
Well that could be quite a crisis in Western intelligence sharing if Tulsi Gabbard is confirmed as Trump's Director of National Inelligence.
Matt Gaetz, under investigation for statutory rape, has been nominated as Attorney General.
There are suggestions thst Trump is planning to avoid the normal scrutiny and consent procedures to his appointments by engineering both houses of Congress going into recess so allowing him to make recess appointments.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 13, 2024 22:03:04 GMT
mercian Homan's" solution" to the issue of deporting undocumented members of families where some members are citizens and others not, there are millions of such cases in the U.S.living peacefully and paying taxes " families can be deported together". A real humanitarian. You do know that " fox news" to avoid yet another fine offered as a defence in court that it isn't a news channel just " entertainment ". I don't recall mentioning Fox News, but whether I did or not perhaps you and your mates could have a little confab and publish a list of what sources you approve of. Does it go much beyond the Guardian? |
|
|
|
Post by richardstamper on Nov 13, 2024 22:09:13 GMT
(My emphasis above) I refer you to The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Quoting the abstract (full paper available at the link) "An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming." Interesting, but a bit of a red herring. I’m not surprised if they weren’t talking about it much in the Seventies! By that point clean air acts of the Fifties had kicked in for a while, and we were getting those heatwaves! Also, there was more awareness of CO2, as the measurements - also started in the fifties IIRC - were better known by then. I talked of the early Sixties with the difficult winters etc. But in any event, regardless of eventual awareness, it shows that you can get new effects to confound. If instead we choose a time prior to starting CO2 measurements in the fifties, harder to show a link with warming. In other words, there was a point at which we didn’t have the CO2 data. It’s just that it wasn’t in the Seventies. There may be other data we don’t have yet. And I’m not using it to undermine global warming. There could be an effect we don’t know about that could very quickly tip things towards more global warming. There are some effects some have been worried about which might suddenly accelerate things alarmingly, e.g. hydrides. (Unless you have a paper that says actually no hydrides are a myth and no one was ever worried about them) I don't think it is a red herring; the paper shows that people weren't generally proposing global cooling as a risk in the early 60s, with the early CO2 data from the IGY onwards already prompting concern about the risk of global warming (Revelle et al 1965). Growing understanding of the impact of aerosols in the late 60s and early 70s then helped explain the observed two-decade cooling from the 40s to the 60s. I guess I'm not sure what you're driving at with your assertion that "it’s a good idea to be prepared both ways" when it comes to climate change risk. Methane hydrates (assuming that's what you meant by hydrides) could definitely push things badly the wrong way although the current consensus is that the risk of their large-scale destabilisation soon is low, but I'm not aware of any significant "upside" (cooling) risks for global warming at present. The likely range for climate change scenarios therefore currently runs from bad to apocalyptic, with our present trajectory rapidly ruling out the more benign options. Preparing "both ways" at present would mean pushing for much, much quicker decarbonisation than that nominally being planned (although not delivered). |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 13, 2024 22:11:47 GMT
turk - "On the death of the Farmer it’s very unlikely there going to have the odd million or two hanging around to pay death duties so the farmers children will have no option to sale the land which no doubt be brought up by some cooperation or other looking to either build on it or hold on to it so it increases in value." A bit daft, considering it was only 1992 when the IHT concessions for farms were brought in. I don't recall farms constantly being sold to developers on the death of farmers. Also worth noting that the value of the estate for IHT will take account of the debt carried by the business, so reducing the overall estate valuation for tax, so long term agricultural borrowings help reduce any IHT liabilities. And also worth noting that if the farmer makes his wife/her husband a partner in the business, they get two lots of IHT allowance, the house isn't counted as part of the estate as it's a family home, and any children could either be gifted a share of the family farm 7 years before the old farmer(s) die and therefore avoid a further tranche of IHT I think you can start to see how some pretty cheap financial advice (it's fine - I don't charge much for this sort of thing) means that few family farms will have to pay IHT and those that do will be the ones where the old tosser refused to let anyone else into the business and was too stubborn to share ownership because it's his farm and this is how my grandfather farmed it so...on and on and on..... Farmers have been around sheep for too long. Far too much bleating here.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 13, 2024 22:18:10 GMT
EDIT: Cocked up quote. Had to rearrange. This comment was in response to one from pete saying there weren't any mainstream socialist newspapers. If enough people were interested, there would be. Newspapers respond to their readership. Regardless of the Corbyn hysteria of a few years ago not many people want socialism despite liking some socialist ideas like the NHS (although thinking about it even that was a Liberal idea originally). |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 22:26:20 GMT
Interesting, but a bit of a red herring. I’m not surprised if they weren’t talking about it much in the Seventies! By that point clean air acts of the Fifties had kicked in for a while, and we were getting those heatwaves! Also, there was more awareness of CO2, as the measurements - also started in the fifties IIRC - were better known by then. I talked of the early Sixties with the difficult winters etc. But in any event, regardless of eventual awareness, it shows that you can get new effects to confound. If instead we choose a time prior to starting CO2 measurements in the fifties, harder to show a link with warming. In other words, there was a point at which we didn’t have the CO2 data. It’s just that it wasn’t in the Seventies. There may be other data we don’t have yet. And I’m not using it to undermine global warming. There could be an effect we don’t know about that could very quickly tip things towards more global warming. There are some effects some have been worried about which might suddenly accelerate things alarmingly, e.g. hydrides. (Unless you have a paper that says actually no hydrides are a myth and no one was ever worried about them) I don't think it is a red herring; the paper shows that people weren't generally proposing global cooling as a risk in the early 60s, with the early CO2 data from the IGY onwards already prompting concern about the risk of global warming (Revelle et al 1965). Growing understanding of the impact of aerosols in the late 60s and early 70s then helped explain the observed two-decade cooling from the 40s to the 60s. I guess I'm not sure what you're driving at with your assertion that "it’s a good idea to be prepared both ways" when it comes to climate change risk. Methane hydrates (assuming that's what you meant by hydrides) could definitely push things badly the wrong way although the current consensus is that the risk of their large-scale destabilisation soon is low, but I'm not aware of any significant "upside" (cooling) risks for global warming at present. The likely range for climate change scenarios therefore currently runs from bad to apocalyptic, with our present trajectory rapidly ruling out the more benign options. Preparing "both ways" at present would mean pushing for much, much quicker decarbonisation than that nominally being planned (although not delivered). Thanks for your response Richard. I haven’t read the full thing yet, but so far have ascertained that “ A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false” So they are going from 1965. Also they say they had new data then: “ The panel's members had two new tools at their disposal that had not been available just a few years before. The first up-to-date global temperature reconstructions had recently become available, allowing them to consider the twentieth century's somewhat confusing temperature trends (Somerville et al. 2007).
More importantly, they had access to carbon dioxide data that Charles David Keeling and his colleagues had been collecting since 1957 on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica (Pales and Keeling 1965; Brown and Keeling 1965). in other words, it’s like I said: they only started collecting to CO2 data in the late 50s, and it took a several years for that to establish a trend and to be in the hands of people doing these assessments. But I was talking about before then (and it might’ve taken a while to percolate through to others, hence why they talked about the 70s?) But the broader point is, regardless of whether anybody predicted cold weather or not, until we had the CO2 readings for a few years, you couldn’t really show the buildup of CO2. This was proof of a new effect we hadn’t measured before. That is the key point. The possibility of discovering hitherto unknown effects. Regarding hydrates, yes, sorry that’s what I meant - I still had hydrides on my mind from my chat about hydrogen a few days ago! Regarding being prepared, well one example could be if the Gulfstream stops and things get quite a bit colder. Something else that I don’t think there’s always known about. But there could be other things no one has yet thought of. the main point is just to be aware of the fact that science tends to be provisional. Something unexpected to confound msy crop up. I know the models predict a range of worrying scenarios, and I’m not saying we shouldn’t be prepared for them. I’m saying we should. But these things are very complicated with strange interactions and feedback effects, and there could be allsorts we haven’t seen yet. Things may change markedly if we get quantum computers, able to able to process a lot more, more quickly. I don’t think you’re really challenging my main point: that the models may not be taking everything into account, and that science often tends to be provisional. That doesn’t mean I’m saying we shouldn’t respond to what the models are saying. I just think we need to be alive to other aspects and keep looking. If that guy hadn’t been looking for something extra and started making those CO2 measurements when he did, how long before we would’ve known? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 13, 2024 22:26:52 GMT
"I don't recall mentioning Fox News, "
The link you provided was to fox news!
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 13, 2024 22:27:12 GMT
indeed, solar activity is a factor… some argue that we are on the verge of drifting into another ice age? ❄️☃️ That was what I was taught at school in the 1960s. I came up with the idea of building a chain of nuclear reactors piping hot water between themselves along the Scottish border to keep the glaciers back. The geography teacher wasn't impressed.  |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 13, 2024 22:39:58 GMT
A glimpse of sanity as Senate republicans reject trumps preferred maga loon Rock Scott as their leader and elected Sen. John Thune instead. Thune like the vast majority of republican senators isn't exactly a profile in courage , but neither is he a maga nut case, Thune rejected Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Given the totally unqualified clowns the rapist has put into his cabinet any glimmer of rationality has to be welcomed. youtu.be/5PTdnsZdOaw?si=LxOoqCNM_6u2d2_w |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 22:43:29 GMT
indeed, solar activity is a factor… some argue that we are on the verge of drifting into another ice age? ❄️☃️ That was what I was taught at school in the 1960s. I came up with the idea of building a chain of nuclear reactors piping hot water between themselves along the Scottish border to keep the glaciers back. The geography teacher wasn't impressed. Maybe he thought you didn’t just want to keep the glaciers back. Regarding the press, I’m not sure they are selling just what people want to read, as opposed to trying to shape opinion. Which is why quite a lot of mainstream media outlets are losing readership/viewership. And why social media influencers are doing better and better. Even a lot of Tories want assorted utilities nationalised now, and I think it’s been a majority opinion overall for a long time, but it’s taken quite a bit for the mainstream media to be entertaining it, in rather lukewarm fashion. Quite a number of Corbyn’s policies tended to poll quite well, which is why the press didn’t attack the policies as much as the man and the party over anti-Semitism et cetera. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 13, 2024 22:58:56 GMT
moby I understand that this is a difficult situation for that individual, but as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) individual states decide the rules under which abortion is allowed or not by democratic means. Surely individuals shouldn't be able to decide which laws they choose to obey? You make it sound like a stroll in the park. Would you obey a rule that could kill you? Well in a similar situation supposing England had very strict abortion laws and Scotland was more liberal I'd go to Scotland, possibly permanently. It's difficult to think of an existing law that could kill me - compulsory seat belts perhaps? I obey that one even though if I was in a car which plunged into a lake or went upside-down into a ditch and caught fire it might kill me. |
|
