|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 22, 2024 15:34:24 GMT
He subsequently said that tax wasn’t the real reason for getting the farm, the real reason was for shooting, but he didn’t feel he could say that, so he said inheritance tax instead. well, if you’re gonna make up another reason instead, Jezza, there are potentially better reasons you could have picked!… Yes, in atleast 2 interviews going back over the years he said he bought it to avoid inheritance tax When caught out for saying this during the farmers protest he then claimed it was so he could shoot So he was lying then or lying now, personally I think he's lying now, having been caught out he's come up with a reason. I suspect he picked shooting just to wind people up. If he really wanted to go shooting there's much cheaper ways Could it be that you fight to be successful so that you dont have to do things "on the cheap" ? |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 22, 2024 15:43:28 GMT
Yes, in atleast 2 interviews going back over the years he said he bought it to avoid inheritance tax When caught out for saying this during the farmers protest he then claimed it was so he could shoot So he was lying then or lying now, personally I think he's lying now, having been caught out he's come up with a reason. I suspect he picked shooting just to wind people up. If he really wanted to go shooting there's much cheaper ways Could it be that you fight to be successful so that you dont have to do things "on the cheap" ? It’s one reason. Not everyone is motivated by money of course. (E.g. Some people would rather make art that they considered to be better, even if it doesn’t sell as well as other art they could make) (I quite like doing things on the cheap, even when I don’t have to. I like the challenge of not wasting resources. Of doing things cheaper, while getting the same result or even better than if I spent more money. It’s tricky though, because I don’t want to have to save money by using up lots of time…) |
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 22, 2024 15:53:52 GMT
You might say Clarkson has made a lucrative career out of ranting. I see the article you quote written by Clarkson agrees that land has become an investment asset for city types. So...it doesnt seem he has a leg to stand on if investors are buying up farms expecting a profit from appreciation of the land value. Not least because it attracts a variety of tax breaks. Bit like houses then? Difference being that a farm produces food so has an economic value. The national obsession with "the housing ladder" and "buying and developing" really doesnt. But of course in this socialist UK we approve of white van man making money out of small scale buy to let, but disapprove of anyone who has been successful in life trying to protect what they have gained by investing in farm land. Which incidentally, has long been a UK business tradition - build up your business, flog it off to foreigners and go and line the landed gentry bit. Goes back to the industrial revolution. "To the manor born" The issue with farming comes about because of the silly prices of agricultural land. I have seen no figures to suggest that the cash investment required to buy and equip a family farm of say 200 acres generates anything like an acceptable return on investment even before paying the farmer for his labour. Work it out - 200 acres is £2.2 million at current prices . Add £500k for a tractor and other bit of kit . A return similar to other UK industries using ONS data might be 10% - not much point in less when you can get 5% on deposits without risk. So return expected might be £270k after paying the farmer a wage for his labour of say £50k. Anybody believe that a 200 cres farmer is generating £320k from growing cereals or sheep etc? Of course they arent. But more importantly HMG is ignoring the emotional bond between the farmer and his land - his roots if you like. To many the farm is not an asset so much as a way of life to be passed down from generation to generation. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,493
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 15:57:25 GMT
Yes, in atleast 2 interviews going back over the years he said he bought it to avoid inheritance tax When caught out for saying this during the farmers protest he then claimed it was so he could shoot So he was lying then or lying now, personally I think he's lying now, having been caught out he's come up with a reason. I suspect he picked shooting just to wind people up. If he really wanted to go shooting there's much cheaper ways Could it be that you fight to be successful so that you dont have to do things "on the cheap" ? What, like try to avoid inheritance tax? |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 22, 2024 16:06:34 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w The Labour Party from its inception was made up of three aspects: The Democratic Socialists broken down could be considered as the Fabian type and the Union type and then the Social Democrats. The latter were really former LIB/LAB MP's (there were for a time also CON/LAB MP's it depended on who owned the capital in a particular area) and what might be called those who liked a mixed economy balanced in favour of the private. Many of those types left with McDonald to Join the National Government. That meant that by the mid thirties the Labour party was in the sway of the Democratic Socialists who also liked a mixed economy but balanced in favour of public ownership of the most important parts of the economy. However, some of the Social Democrats were union bosses, Ernest Bevin for instance (who was really a capitalist although he would never have accepted that label, because he saw union power as a bulwark against capital only in the sense that it created an equality of bargaining power for workers against owners) and they also stayed with Labour because again they saw that the power to negotiate was increased by public ownership of the large industries and because the Unions could exercise political power over policy through conference. That balance began changing in the 1950's with the election of Gaitskill as leader demonstrating the move. Wilson was able to hold it back somewhat, but Callaghan and Healey both came from that wing of the party. The loss in 1979 led to a backlash against that wing until the election of John Smith and then Blair. This tension in the Labour Party led to Harold Wilson saying that one of his greatest achievements was "keeping my party together", I have no doubt this tension still exists. I consider myself a "democratic socialist" in the Fabian tradition and would like to achieve socialism via parliamentary means. However, in my view to that that means convincing more than 50% of the population that it is the correct way to go. The one thing that always bothers me is that people immediately think that this relates to nationalisation! Nationalisation is only one method of common ownership, it is suitable for natural monopolies such as water; there are many more forms of common ownership which would undermine economic inequality in society. I always liked the old clause IV and I used to bridle when journalists referred to it as the nationalisation clause. It is wealth worth a read: "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." I can think of workers co-operatives, syndicalism and community companies as meeting this definition. Although I believe it has reached the stage that capital has sown the seeds of its own destruction, I do not believe that the economic democratic socialism I believe will happen in my life time. Thanks for this post wb - I didn’t reply immediately as I was chatting with lululemonmustdobetter and wanted to avoid spinning as many plates as a few days ago. Found it interesting and I find myself in agreement with much of it, really only have a couple of things to add. I think maybe the Tories also helped Wilson keep the party together. So long as the Tories were on board with the postwar consensus, there was little point for the Social Democrats in the party to kick off. They wouldn’t gain much, as letting the Tories in wouldn’t change things much economically, and they would lose the chance to get the liberal social reforms. Once they had got their liberal social reforms in the late Sixties, and then when Thatcher took over, then they could rebel, to facilitate Thatcher doing some of what they wanted for them. Joining the EC also helped embolden them, as quite a lot of right-wing economics was now going to be increasingly baked in. The demise of the Liberals electorally in the early 1920s led to some joining Tories and Labour, and as you suggest by the 50s that was feeding through as they got into the top jobs. (MacMillan was a fan of Liberals and Lloyd George but he joined parliament in 1924 after the Liberal rout and chose Tories). Regarding common ownership, I agree, it doesn’t always have to be nationalisation. I have sometimes suggested just having a state player in the market. Others on here have talked about mutuals etc. before. (Although as laszlo4new pointed out before now, in terms of socialism it doesn’t always have to be “ownership”, but “control” may suffice With energy we are already getting some common ownership of community schemes? Did leftieliberal say he was involved in one a while back or have I got wires crossed?) |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,040
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 22, 2024 16:08:41 GMT
You might say Clarkson has made a lucrative career out of ranting. I see the article you quote written by Clarkson agrees that land has become an investment asset for city types. So...it doesnt seem he has a leg to stand on if investors are buying up farms expecting a profit from appreciation of the land value. Not least because it attracts a variety of tax breaks. Bit like houses then? Difference being that a farm produces food so has an economic value. The national obsession with "the housing ladder" and "buying and developing" really doesnt. But of course in this socialist UK we approve of white van man making money out of small scale buy to let, but disapprove of anyone who has been successful in life trying to protect what they have gained by investing in farm land. Which incidentally, has long been a UK business tradition - build up your business, flog it off to foreigners and go and line the landed gentry bit. Goes back to the industrial revolution. "To the manor born" The issue with farming comes about because of the silly prices of agricultural land. I have seen no figures to suggest that the cash investment required to buy and equip a family farm of say 200 acres generates anything like an acceptable return on investment even before paying the farmer for his labour. Work it out - 200 acres is £2.2 million at current prices . Add £500k for a tractor and other bit of kit . A return similar to other UK industries using ONS data might be 10% - not much point in less when you can get 5% on deposits without risk. So return expected might be £270k after paying the farmer a wage for his labour of say £50k. Anybody believe that a 200 cres farmer is generating £320k from growing cereals or sheep etc? Of course they arent. But more importantly HMG is ignoring the emotional bond between the farmer and his land - his roots if you like. To many the farm is not an asset so much as a way of life to be passed down from generation to generation. I don't think anyone denies the tradition bit. However, it's a subsidised industry and those subsidies should encourage gainful employment for as many individuals as possible, not encourage amalgamation and super farms and all the land owned by the successful few at the expense of young entrants etc. I fully support handicaps for those that have become too successful. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 22, 2024 16:18:03 GMT
That suggests that, where a local issue party has ceased to engage the local population, that it's ok to vote for a mainstream party. It also looks as though Reform are an acceptable alternative, possibly because they now have MPs, and hence are perceived as a more than just a protest vote. I honestly feel like the "threat" of Reform is being underplayed. They are getting more organised according the Guardian and claiming 100k members now- higher than LD and Greens and closing in on the Tories. We can talk all we like about how dreadful some of their MPs are, which indeed they are, but if there's any sort of a lesson here then everyone underestimated Trump both times. It's all very tragic but I think people dismissing them are making a terrible mistake. Of course easy to not dismiss them but harder to find a solution. They are a long way from meaningful influence and maybe they will make some bad errors (I think manifestos on the NHS could be one) and collapse especially given Farage has full control, but what comes to America often comes to the UK eventually. |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,040
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 22, 2024 16:34:05 GMT
That suggests that, where a local issue party has ceased to engage the local population, that it's ok to vote for a mainstream party. It also looks as though Reform are an acceptable alternative, possibly because they now have MPs, and hence are perceived as a more than just a protest vote. I honestly feel like the "threat" of Reform is being underplayed. They are getting more organised according the Guardian and claiming 100k members now- higher than LD and Greens and closing in on the Tories. We can talk all we like about how dreadful some of their MPs are, which indeed they are, but if there's any sort of a lesson here then everyone underestimated Trump both times. It's all very tragic but I think people dismissing them are making a terrible mistake. Of course easy to not dismiss them but harder to find a solution. They are a long way from meaningful influence and maybe they will make some bad errors (I think manifestos on the NHS could be one) and collapse especially given Farage has full control, but what comes to America often comes to the UK eventually. I thought Boris Johnson was a mini me Trump in any case. The biggest threat is that the Tories go for a pact with Reform, either formally or informally, and agree to stay off each others" turf as it is. The whole situation would be anarchic, but they could repeat the 2019 Johnson success. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,505
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 16:39:55 GMT
If existing immigrants start having an issue with further immigration, like in the States. It may be that increasing immigration has a natural tailing-off in that regard? There was Uk polling on that. Uk immigrants do not like further immigration. You only had to look at the last government to know that, or at least know they understood it even if they didnt actually act on it. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 22, 2024 16:40:27 GMT
No -i'm not "relentlessly downbeat "in "real life" Perhaps your own implied distinction between real life and life on UKPR2 provides a marker. The forum is peopled by many political activists and party members. And mostly Labour Party ones.In light of the last GE election result i would expect them to be upbeat and i suppose any posts from me which jar against that will seem "downbeat" to you. As far as humanity in general is concerned , that would be a long explanation of my outlook. And i'm not even sure i could be certain about it  In general I quite like the search for "realism" . But its not always easy to establish ! You missed the PMI's turning negative today and you get called downbeat :-) On a more serious note- these poor economic figures are work in progress I feel. I do think Reeves talked the economy down using the playbook of the coalition in 2010 to put blame on the last government for a long term political advantage. I think she has a fair reason for doing this with the unfunded NIC cut pre-election effectively having to be reversed in a roundabout way. But she boxed herself in with some of her own pre-election pledges not to raise taxes and then to dampen the mood and creating a doom and gloom atmosphere. You would expect any announcements to fix financial black holes to have a negative effect but, as you pointed out with the borrowing figures, they seem to have been necessary and the judgment becomes whether they were well targeted or not. So work in progress because we have to see how temporary all these things are or whether a possible recession becomes exponential as it did in 2010. Brown feels a bit like the standout chancellor for handling a crisis but difficult to know how he would have handled the 2010 economy to prevent the recession that followed when Labour were promising slightly less severe cuts. I'm not sure that Reeves has handled this at all well in terms of her signalling and I don't feel she has hit the right targets either morally or fiscally for the austerity lite she has introduced. But this could just be a few months and companies start saying this isn't as bad as we expected. Agree with a chunk of that. On Reeve's "targeting" I would really like to know how they were chosen. There is a slight feel of taxing those who didnt vote Labour + the traditional attack on corporates. The latter seeming an odd way of cementing the co-operation which she says is at the heart of her growth plan. It all feels odd to me . I wonder in fact whether she is placing far more hope than i have been in the supply side reforms on planning and the merging and targeting of pension fund investment. Im not seeing a central thrust to it all as yet. And as you say her signalling has been off. Actually all though the previous administration is always a convenient whipping boy, and public finances are manifestly unsustainable, imo she ( and Starmer) are overdoing the £22 bn black hole. Time will tell as ever. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,505
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 16:40:51 GMT
Yes, in atleast 2 interviews going back over the years he said he bought it to avoid inheritance tax When caught out for saying this during the farmers protest he then claimed it was so he could shoot So he was lying then or lying now, personally I think he's lying now, having been caught out he's come up with a reason. I suspect he picked shooting just to wind people up. If he really wanted to go shooting there's much cheaper ways Could it be that you fight to be successful so that you dont have to do things "on the cheap" ? Its a different experience just being able to walk out any time and shoot things. A big shoot is a very choreographed thing, whereas hunting by yourself is more man v nature. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 22, 2024 16:54:36 GMT
You might say Clarkson has made a lucrative career out of ranting. I see the article you quote written by Clarkson agrees that land has become an investment asset for city types. So...it doesnt seem he has a leg to stand on if investors are buying up farms expecting a profit from appreciation of the land value. Not least because it attracts a variety of tax breaks. Bit like houses then? Difference being that a farm produces food so has an economic value. The national obsession with "the housing ladder" and "buying and developing" really doesnt. But of course in this socialist UK we approve of white van man making money out of small scale buy to let, but disapprove of anyone who has been successful in life trying to protect what they have gained by investing in farm land. Which incidentally, has long been a UK business tradition - build up your business, flog it off to foreigners and go and line the landed gentry bit. Goes back to the industrial revolution. "To the manor born" The issue with farming comes about because of the silly prices of agricultural land. I have seen no figures to suggest that the cash investment required to buy and equip a family farm of say 200 acres generates anything like an acceptable return on investment even before paying the farmer for his labour. Work it out - 200 acres is £2.2 million at current prices . Add £500k for a tractor and other bit of kit . A return similar to other UK industries using ONS data might be 10% - not much point in less when you can get 5% on deposits without risk. So return expected might be £270k after paying the farmer a wage for his labour of say £50k. Anybody believe that a 200 cres farmer is generating £320k from growing cereals or sheep etc? Of course they arent. But more importantly HMG is ignoring the emotional bond between the farmer and his land - his roots if you like. To many the farm is not an asset so much as a way of life to be passed down from generation to generation. For the few hundred million she planned to rake in from this it seems like an extraordinary policy. My impression -particularly given the reported concessions-is that neither Reeves nor her Treasury officials really T understood what they were doing. There is no sign of consultation with DEFRA. So I think it was a cock-up flowing from the loc idea that people who own land are ipso facto wealthy. The concept of continuity and assets which cannot be traded if the business is to continue, let alone a culture of family farming was never in their modelling or thinking. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,505
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 16:58:56 GMT
But of course in this socialist UK we approve of white van man making money out of small scale buy to let, but disapprove of anyone who has been successful in life trying to protect what they have gained by investing in farm land. Which incidentally, has long been a UK business tradition - build up your business, flog it off to foreigners and go and line the landed gentry bit. Goes back to the industrial revolution. "To the manor born" Not sure where you are going with this. The argument put forward has been that inheritance tax prevents farmers keeping farms in the family which they have owned for generations. First problem of course, what is the national benefit from giving them tax breaks to do this which other investments would not attract. There doesnt seem to be one. But second problem, to help actual farmers we need to reduce the price of land, which implies getting rid of all tax breaks which would encourage speculative investment, indeed add extra taxes to anyone transferring land, more than on normal investments. Make land completely unattractive as an investment. Maybe make it illegal to own land unless you live on it? small farmers I have known have ancient equipment with bits falling off. Those owning at least hundreds if not thousands of acres have been deliberately muddled into the argument, who can afford and justify better (essentially, faster operating) equipment. One might say -obviously. So how about I get a million allowance on my family home I am emotionally attached to? And dont forget the kids who are inheriting will have been forced to leave home when they became adults, because theres no income for them working on the farm. And still no one will explain how you divide a one farmer family farm between three children and have anything more than an unviable holding each? Or are you seriously suggesting farmers disinherit most of their children? |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 22, 2024 17:02:24 GMT
However, it's a subsidised industry and those subsidies should encourage gainful employment for as many individuals as possible, not encourage amalgamation and super farms and all the land owned by the successful few at the expense of young entrants etc. That is what Reeves' budget may well achieve because the IHT will not be fundable in many cases from operational cash flow. Assets ( land) will have to be sold to fund the tax. Who will buy those assets ? Larger organisations i assume. Maybe only to lease them back to their previous family owner as a tenant |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,505
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 17:03:16 GMT
There is a slight feel of taxing those who didnt vote Labour + the traditional attack on corporates. Maybe the reason traditonal labour voters have lost faith with the party is exactly because it fails to tax those who did not vote for it? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,715
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Nov 22, 2024 17:11:35 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w I really only meant only people are capable of shooting back/ blowing themselves up/ attacking you with an axe etc. Not normally the range of behaviour you'd expect from a pheasant. I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned de Menezes he was clearly an innocent man that doesn't mean the police officer who shot him wasn't under anything other than the certain belief that if he didn't act he and everyone around him were about to die. The police failure was in the identification provided by the surveillance team and a catastrophic failure of command and control.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,137
|
Post by domjg on Nov 22, 2024 17:16:52 GMT
I honestly feel like the "threat" of Reform is being underplayed. They are getting more organised according the Guardian and claiming 100k members now- higher than LD and Greens and closing in on the Tories. We can talk all we like about how dreadful some of their MPs are, which indeed they are, but if there's any sort of a lesson here then everyone underestimated Trump both times. It's all very tragic but I think people dismissing them are making a terrible mistake. Of course easy to not dismiss them but harder to find a solution. They are a long way from meaningful influence and maybe they will make some bad errors (I think manifestos on the NHS could be one) and collapse especially given Farage has full control, but what comes to America often comes to the UK eventually. I thought Boris Johnson was a mini me Trump in any case. The biggest threat is that the Tories go for a pact with Reform, either formally or informally, and agree to stay off each others" turf as it is. The whole situation would be anarchic, but they could repeat the 2019 Johnson success. Yes, I would say the lesson from America is that in a well established, largely binary fptp system to gain traction as a right wing populist you need to capture one of the major parties. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 22, 2024 17:31:14 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w I really only meant only people are capable of shooting back/ blowing themselves up/ attacking you with an axe etc. Not normally the range of behaviour you'd expect from a pheasant. I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned de Menezes he was clearly an innocent man that doesn't mean the police officer who shot him wasn't under anything other than the certain belief that if he didn't act he and everyone around him were about to die. The police failure was in the identification provided by the surveillance team and a catastrophic failure of command and control. It’s ok, I just remembered what you said what you would have done. But anyways… back to checking out Black Friday deals… |
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Nov 22, 2024 18:10:46 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w I really only meant only people are capable of shooting back/ blowing themselves up/ attacking you with an axe etc. Not normally the range of behaviour you'd expect from a pheasant. I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned de Menezes he was clearly an innocent man that doesn't mean the police officer who shot him wasn't under anything other than the certain belief that if he didn't act he and everyone around him were about to die. The police failure was in the identification provided by the surveillance team and a catastrophic failure of command and control. Hmmm you seem to forget the misinformation & lying through their teeth that followed as they attempted to cover it up “Why did he run?” Answer - he didn’t Learned nothing from Hillsborough and nobody ever answered for the lies either |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,040
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 22, 2024 18:50:49 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w I really only meant only people are capable of shooting back/ blowing themselves up/ attacking you with an axe etc. Not normally the range of behaviour you'd expect from a pheasant. I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned de Menezes he was clearly an innocent man that doesn't mean the police officer who shot him wasn't under anything other than the certain belief that if he didn't act he and everyone around him were about to die. The police failure was in the identification provided by the surveillance team and a catastrophic failure of command and control. Hmmm you seem to forget the misinformation & lying through their teeth that followed as they attempted to cover it up “Why did he run?” Answer - he didn’t Learned nothing from Hillsborough and nobody ever answered for the lies either It wasn't the Metropolitan Police's finest hour. In mitigation, the whole country was on edge and the chain of failure was accountable, even if unacceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 22, 2024 19:34:26 GMT
'The emotional bond between the farmer and his land' I don't doubt it exists. There are many throughout British History who have wished to see their Children follow them in their Trade, Early 19th Century textile artisans thrown out of work by new technology, some of them were hanged for protesting, Shipwrights or Shipyard workers saw opportunities for their sons dwindle away as production was moved to where Labour was cheaper. Agricultural Labourers forced off the Land into the growing Cities Later there were Miners who despite the fact the job was difficult hoped that their Industry had a future so that the Communities they lived in remained viable.
Where I live in the South West there are young people who can't hope to buy a property in the villages their Grand Parents and Great Grand parents lived, those small cottages have been bought up by wealthy second Home owners or air B&b investors. Even the EX local Authority housing is out of reach. They are told that's just Market forces though and they just have to suck it up.
Whilst I understand that those who have worked the Land may have a deep connection to it, some perspective is needed regards the IHT proposals, which after all still gives them a better deal than any other sector of the Population. If they have to sell, well they realise the Value of their assets and will enjoy a retirement few in Britain can expect.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 22, 2024 21:37:45 GMT
Guardian has upped the ante in the mince pie wars… ‘I’ll be making my own’: UK’s most expensive mince pie divides opinion www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/22/ill-be-making-my-own-uks-most-expensive-mince-pie-divides-opinionmeanwhile the Times tried “the most expensive mince pies in Britain — are they worth it?” top picks… Pump Street Bakery, £25 for 6 ★★★★★ A pudding in themselves. Thin, crisp, buttery pastry encases a dense, rich filling. The aftertaste is of fruit, spice and booze rather than cloying sweetness. Would make anyone’s Christmas. St John, £21 for 6 ★★★★★ As you’d expect from Fergus Henderson’s bakery, these look like mini hand-raised pork pies. Hefty too: the filling is more Christmas pudding than traditional mincemeat, and all the more delicious for it. (Are they worth it?? They’d better be at over £4 each. Puts the Telegraph in the shade a bit…) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,493
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 21:50:30 GMT
Trump’s vote share is now at 49.9% with some votes still being counted. Looks like his margin over Harris will be around 1.5%- the third smallest winning margin since 1888
He won, but it wasn't a landslide, the vagaries of the electoral college gave him the big win there
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 22, 2024 22:36:47 GMT
Russian economy creaking; the ruble has lost around 20% in the last three months, with a faster deterioration this week. The central bank raised it's main rate to a record 21% a couple of weeks ago, and internal analysts are predicting the economy to slow next year, with falling investment and labour shortages. Inflation remains at over 9%.
If Ukraine can continue to inflict serious damage on Russia, there are increasing signs that the economic turmoil unleashed by the war will start to seriously hurt Moscow.
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 22, 2024 23:22:44 GMT
steve As I'm sure you are aware large supermarkets have huge turnover and relatively smaller profits than some riskier businesses, namely because they have a more stable income base My point was Tesco's made their highest profit for 10 years, this year profits reached £2.83bn - up more than £300m from a year earlier, so around a 12% increase At the same time they claim going forward they will have to give lower wages and or cut staff going forward because of the NIC increase. Tesco staffing is already low, in fairness they've invested in self checkouts etc, so need minimal staff on check out Large numbers of staff are involved in home shopping, Tesos don't do that for any reason other than they make a profit on it I can't see how they will cut many staff without seriously eating in the bottom line I'm sure they will continue to invest in technology to reduce staff, but they'd do that anyway to increase their profits. They don't do these things for philanthropic reasons, they do it to make more money. Nothing wrong with that, but big firms like these complaining about increased costs reminds me of the Mandy Rice-Davies quote There's a pernicious irony here, in that for the likes of Tesco and Next the options available for dealing with the sudden cost hit are the broadest. 1. Accept lower than expected profits 2. Pass the cost onto customers and/or suppliers 3. Reduce investment 4. Recover the cost from staff in the form of more limited pay increases or reductions in hours/jobs If Tesco or Next with their billion-pound profits do #4 in order to avoid #1 then it's through their own choice and they should be pilloried for it. The problem for many other retailers (and many firms in other relatively manual sectors) is that you can't do #1 if you don't already make a large cash profit relative to the number of people you employ, and you can't do #2 if you don't have a very strong or even dominant market position in your industry, unless everyone else is also doing the same which is where the potential inflationary risk comes from. #3 and #4 are both really bad options to be suddenly forced into as your only ways of meeting a new tax bill, because that will only make it harder to continue to compete, and in some cases to continue at all. |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Nov 22, 2024 23:34:21 GMT
I'm hopeless at manipulating the text on this app. I agree with that (as an optimist) and I have retained a view for 50 years that making ordinary people better off is beneficial for everybody, including those at the top even if their differential is reduced. And by and large I thought the budget was excellent, though not as radical as I think is required. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 22, 2024 23:46:18 GMT
Or Labour have gambled and decided bosses will take the rap for poor pay increases. Its hard telling your workforce there's no money in the till if you live in a big house, drive a big car and still take 2/3 holidays a year. Those that really struggle? are they viable business models? I think that would be a poor gamble - if the company has just been stuck for another £10m or £20m, it doesn't matter if the CEO has a nice car. The question about viability is a fair one, especially at a sector level - if we even get close to a situation where every job pays a decent standard of living then is something like the care industry viable at all in its current form? Probably not. But you can't just bankrupt it overnight and then form a committee to ponder what we should do about the resulting calamities either, I'd like to think we've learnt at least that much from Thatcher's legacy. Put the question another way - what sense does it make to simultaneously mandate a large increase in Minimum Wage and to levy a large increase in the tax on employing the lowest-paid people? |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 23, 2024 0:11:07 GMT
So let's focus on The maniac's pick as defence Secretary Pete Hegseth a totally unsuitable former national guard Major and fox news host. While in this role he nearly killed someone with an axe while drunk. He is an extreme christofascist white supremacist,misogynist and to no one's surprise at all it transpires he's another sexual predator, "A woman told police that she was sexually assaulted in 2017 by Pete Hegseth after he took her phone, blocked the door to a California hotel room and refused to let her leave, according to a detailed investigative report made public late on Wednesday. Hegseth, a Fox News personality and Donald Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary, told police at the time that the encounter had been consensual and denied any wrongdoing, the report said. News of the allegations surfaced last week when local officials released a brief statement confirming that a woman had accused Hegseth of sexual assault in October 2017 after he had spoken at a Republican women’s event in Monterey." While Hesgeth denied the allegation of rape he subsequently paid the individual an undisclosed amount of money and agreed a non disclosure agreement. The obvious actions of an innocent man. "The 22-page police report was released in response to a public records request and offers the first detailed account of what the woman alleged to have transpired – one that is at odds with Hegseth’s version of events. The report cited police interviews with the alleged victim, a nurse who treated her, a hotel staffer, another woman at the event and Hegseth. So a television personality ,a liar and a rapist. Remind you of anyone who might have nominated him. It's possible that Senate republicans might not select Hegseth but having dodged the bullet of having to oppose the dear leader's pick as attorney general They may well show their normal spineless supplicancy.Another great pick a WWF official as Education Secretary , sadly it isn't Hulk Hogan! That's a bit harsh - they didn't dodge the bullet so much as shoot the scumbag in the head. Interesting that Gaetz's people are citing Mitch McConnell as one of the Senators that basically said "no way, come what may". Seems a fair bet considering some of his colleagues that neither ethics nor safeguarding were McConnell's foremost consideration, and that there was indeed a degree of retribution involved. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,715
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Nov 23, 2024 6:41:36 GMT
eor We will have to wait and see with the totally unqualified deeply flawed extremist Hegseth. But having had their hated colleague Gaetz throw himself out the window that particular issue no longer troubles the poor dears. Maybe someone will break out an electron microscope and find any remaining particle of civic duty in the republicans but I doubt it. Btw while rapist elect and the rest of his clowns will no doubt continue to push the lie of a massive mandate it transpires that the maniac didn't actually get 50% + of the vote and It's the third closest election in vote share since the 1880's.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 23, 2024 7:29:50 GMT
|
|
