RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 9:56 am Parliament resoundingly votes through the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. Including my MP. And so nonviolent protest is suppressed further. They're taking legal action but I doubt that'll do anything more than delay things.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rist-group

I don't really understand how this works for the people running the group. Could they just rename it? Could they start up another group and have all the PA members joint that? Or are they effectively banned from running any protest group for the Palestinian cause?

The Hansard records are interesting: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... fTerrorism

Puja

Zarah Sultana to set up a new left wing party with Corbyn and other independents/socialists: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyel9kgdvdo

It's desperately needed to fill the political gap that Labour are leaving, and will potentially acquire a number of disaffected Labour MPs like Whittome and Long-Bailey, but I'm curious as to why they didn't wait to see if Polanski won the Green leadership. Or maybe the idea that Green as a brand is seen as too staid and unelectable?

Puja

And Scamdalf has shot down the idea saying he knew nothing about it. As left leaning circular firing squads go this is some sort of record.

Danno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 12:19 am And Scamdalf has shot down the idea saying he knew nothing about it. As left leaning circular firing squads go this is some sort of record.

Scamdalf? Haven't heard that one before.

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 10:44 pm Zarah Sultana to set up a new left wing party with Corbyn and other independents/socialists: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyel9kgdvdo

It's desperately needed to fill the political gap that Labour are leaving, and will potentially acquire a number of disaffected Labour MPs like Whittome and Long-Bailey, but I'm curious as to why they didn't wait to see if Polanski won the Green leadership. Or maybe the idea that Green as a brand is seen as too staid and unelectable?

Puja

I imagine that Long-Bailey and the other left-wing MPs who still have the Labour whip will stay where they are. While it makes sense for purged MPs and independents to form a new party, such a thing has very little chance of making a national impact*. Labour MPs on the left will mostly stay where they are, biding their time otherwise there's no chance that the next Labour leader will be left-wing.


* unless it merged with the Greens, perhaps, but there seems to be no hope of this because (unfortunately) the Greens don't seem to want anyone to know that they're left-wing.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 9:54 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 10:44 pm Zarah Sultana to set up a new left wing party with Corbyn and other independents/socialists: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyel9kgdvdo

It's desperately needed to fill the political gap that Labour are leaving, and will potentially acquire a number of disaffected Labour MPs like Whittome and Long-Bailey, but I'm curious as to why they didn't wait to see if Polanski won the Green leadership. Or maybe the idea that Green as a brand is seen as too staid and unelectable?

Puja

I imagine that Long-Bailey and the other left-wing MPs who still have the Labour whip will stay where they are. While it makes sense for purged MPs and independents to form a new party, such a thing has very little chance of making a national impact*. Labour MPs on the left will mostly stay where they are, biding their time otherwise there's no chance that the next Labour leader will be left-wing.


* unless it merged with the Greens, perhaps, but there seems to be no hope of this because (unfortunately) the Greens don't seem to want anyone to know that they're left-wing.

Good point - although I wonder at what point they consider they might not be able to turn the behemoth around. Starmer's certainly worked hard enough to prevent it by handpicking MP candidates, blocking socialists from being selected, and changing the internal mechanisms to give the best chance of avoiding a change of tack.

Danno wrote: ↑Fri Jul 04, 2025 12:19 am And Scamdalf has shot down the idea saying he knew nothing about it. As left leaning circular firing squads go this is some sort of record.

Sounds like Sultana has properly fucked up. I'm sure it was planned as being a big announcement, front-page news, an immediate press release with details of the MPs who would be joining, and statements of intent about what they planned to do with this, but instead it's become a beggar's muddle that's been overshadowed by Jota's death and Reeves crying. Now Corbyn's got to decide if he backs up Sultana and eschews a big, organised reveal, or if he keeps his head down and offers vague platitudes about cooperation between independents until the dust settles. McDonnell's wished her luck but said he won't be joining, which probably suggests the latter.

Either way, I think she's stitched up her chances of being leader of this putative new party!

Puja

This is great - bringing back Sure Start after Tories and LibDems scrapped it. But it's such an obvious good thing to do, why didn't it happen straight after the election last year? These things take time to have an impact, so why waste a year?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... phillipson

Because they're utterly clueless, to be blunt.

The next worry is that Labour will go after special needs kids in their desperate search for revenue from disadvantaged groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ttee-chair

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 1:11 pm The next worry is that Labour will go after special needs kids in their desperate search for revenue from disadvantaged groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ttee-chair

Heavens forfend that we look at plugging the tax gap with the billions made by the richest over the pandemic.

Puja

Or the billions lost through tax avoidance / evasion of the wealthy, and corporations.
EG and IIRC, Starbucks famously paid £8.6M of UK tax over the course of a dozen years. Because they couldn't say what country payments were made in (but they could tell how much any specific Barrister sold)

Close the legal loopholes, and crack down on the illegal exploiters (Yes, I know - that sort of suggestion is why Brexit happened...)

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 1:46 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 1:11 pm The next worry is that Labour will go after special needs kids in their desperate search for revenue from disadvantaged groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ttee-chair

Heavens forfend that we look at plugging the tax gap with the billions made by the richest over the pandemic.

Puja

The tough choices Labour has to make never seem to involve that tough choice.

What's the story with this capital flight out of London? Is it real or just a blip or an overblown news story?

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:25 pm What's the story with this capital flight out of London? Is it real or just a blip or an overblown news story?

Who knows what the truth is? It would be nice to take the heat off the London housing market though.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/j ... ing-the-uk

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 5:24 pm

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:25 pm What's the story with this capital flight out of London? Is it real or just a blip or an overblown news story?

Who knows what the truth is? It would be nice to take the heat off the London housing market though.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/j ... ing-the-uk

"A report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that if a quarter of non-doms left the UK, the net gain to the Treasury would be zero. That research was commissioned by Andrew Barclay, the co-founder of the property platform Yopa, grandson of one of the billionaire Barclay brothers.

Barclay now runs the Land of Opportunity Campaign, a lobbying effort that intends to recreate Britain’s economy in the image of the US."

There we are.

Puja

No amount of money is ever enough for these filthy c***s. Tax them to hell and back

Danno wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 7:36 am No amount of money is ever enough for these filthy c***s. Send them to hell and tax their estate

FTFY

I've never understood the outrage over inheritance tax. People seem to feel entitled to their parents' money, like it's something that's owed to them. I can understand in terms of a family home or a dependent spouse, but grown children, with their own lucrative careers, being outraged that they might only get £3 million instead of £4 million, because "my family earned that money, so that means it should all come to me!"

Surely the idea is that you should earn your own money, no?

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 12:59 am I've never understood the outrage over inheritance tax. People seem to feel entitled to their parents' money, like it's something that's owed to them. I can understand in terms of a family home or a dependent spouse, but grown children, with their own lucrative careers, being outraged that they might only get £3 million instead of £4 million, because "my family earned that money, so that means it should all come to me!"

Surely the idea is that you should earn your own money, no?

Puja

It's not as if the threshold at which IHT is payable isn't plenty generous in the first place. And then the rates are pathetic when it consists of totally unearned income/assets

Danno wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 2:10 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 12:59 am I've never understood the outrage over inheritance tax. People seem to feel entitled to their parents' money, like it's something that's owed to them. I can understand in terms of a family home or a dependent spouse, but grown children, with their own lucrative careers, being outraged that they might only get £3 million instead of £4 million, because "my family earned that money, so that means it should all come to me!"

Surely the idea is that you should earn your own money, no?

Puja

It's not as if the threshold at which IHT is payable isn't plenty generous in the first place. And then the rates are pathetic when it consists of totally unearned income/assets

I can understand why people don't like inheritance tax but it comes down to what sort of society we want to have, one where your birth decides what sort of life you get (and wealth and power accumulates in families) or one where everyone gets to live a decent life. No brainer really, if you have a bit of empathy or have heard of the veil of ignorance.

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:25 am Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:33 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:25 am Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:03 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:33 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:25 am Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:03 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:33 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:25 am Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Not just this, but it's the idea that: "We paid our taxes, we paid our due, and then you want to take it again". And we're not talking about HUGE sums here, it's the people who are sitting on homes worth £800k-£2m who get hardest hit. These are the places like what my parents own. They were not that expensive, comparatively. They've paid ever increasing council taxes on the house, with ever increasing costs of living, and they never earned more than £90k a year between them in the last few years before retirement.

It's hard to forget that house prices in and around London are so insane that a sudden bill on inheriting a property like that would cripple me. IF my parents both died, my sister and I would need to foot a bill exceeding £500k.

That is excessive, imo. We're not rich, we're far from it. Because inheritance tax hits the middle classes harder. And we're moving to a society where the middle classes don't really exist.

IF there was a lower cap, where 0 inheritance was paid on estates valued at £1m or £1.5m or less, and then everything on top of that was taxable...that I would understand.