Stom wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 4:14 pm
Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…
Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint
Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.
It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.
Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint
Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.
It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.
Puja
Well, they don't call her Goodenoch.
Despite her other faults, she does have a hilarious name.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:45 am
by Son of Mathonwy
Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:
It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?
And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.
Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.
* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:23 pm
by Which Tyler
As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.
If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.
In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.
#YourBodyYourRules
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2024 5:27 pm
by Puja
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:45 am
Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:
It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?
And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.
Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.
* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it
I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.
It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?
And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.
Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.
* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it
I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.
It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?
And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.
Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.
* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it
I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.
Puja
Possibly. Although he is a dyed in the wool Blairite, funded by private health and mates with Alan Milburn, which might make him look that way.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:13 am
by Son of Mathonwy
My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 11:21 am
by Puja
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:13 am
My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.
- "Classic BBC. Classic. Saying it's a *fact* that I bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax."
- "You told the Sunday Times in 2021 that that's why you bought it."
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:13 am
My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.
- "Classic BBC. Classic. Saying it's a *fact* that I bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax."
- "You told the Sunday Times in 2021 that that's why you bought it."
Quality stuff. Rarely has someone been so owned by a journalist:
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 12:19 pm
by Stom
Yeah, this just needs some simple clarification from Labour and 80%+ of people will be in favor
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 12:50 pm
by Mikey Brown
Christ, he’s such a twat. The painful part is knowing people are sharing that with “Clarkson owns liberal snowflake reporter with facts and logic” captions.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:39 pm
by Sandydragon
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:13 am
My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.
Ho hum.
I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.
Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.
Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.
I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:13 am
My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.
Ho hum.
I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.
Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.
Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.
I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.
But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:13 am
My heart bleeds for the farmers. An extra £1m exemption per person, half the tax rate and ten years to pay it. It's so unfair.
Ho hum.
I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.
Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.
Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.
I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.
But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.
Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.
Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.
Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.
I fully understand why the government want to go after rich people who put money into land. Fair game.
Many farmers will have assets in the business (land and agricultural equipment can be expensive) which would push them to the limit. That doesnt mean they are cash rich.
Farming has been incredibly hard for many for a long time. The agricultural community's support for Brexit was hugely unhelpful for most. This is probably the last straw for many, and we import too much of our food as it is.
I think there is a reassurance piece that the government can do here, but the media will keep the pressure up, so that period of reflection will not happen. Whilst you can argue very easily that other businesses arent supported like this, the loss of smaller farmers would either mean their replacement by richer landowners (not sure thats what Reeves wants) or the loss of the farm altogether which means importing more food and the additional CO2 in transportation.
But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.
Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.
Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.
Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.
But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.
Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.
While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.
The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.
But it's not smaller farmers that are at risk here, is it? £3m+ needs to be the value of the estate to accrue inheritence tax.
Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.
Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.
Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.
But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.
Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.
While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.
The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.
Puja
I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.
You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.
This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.
Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.
Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.
Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.
But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.
Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.
While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.
The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.
Puja
I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.
You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.
This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.
This is the partial closure of a tax-avoidance loophole. The tax on the hypothetical £3.5m farm would be £100k, that is £10k/year for 10 years. It's payable (and extremely lenient compared to what non-farmers face).
But stop for a moment. Are you really saying that someone about to inherit an estate worth £3.5m is in need of tax breaks? That's ridiculous.
Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.
Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.
Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.
But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.
Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.
While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.
The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.
Puja
I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.
You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.
This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.
Thinking about this, while I am still annoyed at how overblown this has been and how performative "common people" millionaires, like Clarkson and Farage, have weaponised it, I do see your point - this is a shitty way to aim for the actual target and runs the risk of collateral damage. There's surely a better option to hit investors buying farmland to avoid taxes, like a stamp duty to buying farmland if you own over a certain amount already - wouldn't hit existing investors, but would scupper future dickheads.
Apart from anything else, this is a terrible replacement for the wealth tax that's needed. The problem is less that James Dyson owns £550 million of UK farmland (although it is still a problem, cause a google tells me that he's massively reduced the amount of actual farming that's done on that 36,000 acres because it's an inheritance tax haven, not a profit-making enterprise, and it's easier just to not work some of it), and more that he has accumulated £23 billion.
Puja
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2024 11:15 am
by Which Tyler
I see the "You lost, get over it" brigade have gathered 2 million signatures for their "4 months of a labour government is more than enough, give us a new election now" petition.
Not that 2 million in 24 hours is suspicious at all either...
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2024 5:30 pm
by Zhivago
+1 to the sentiment that those multimillionaire farmers should put up and shut up.
One reason why agricultural land has risen in value so much is surely because of tax loopholes like the exemption they had. It artificially supresses the supply of agricultural land onto the market. After this law is introduced, we can expect agricultural land values to decrease, and fewer farms to fall into the category.
If the land does not generate sufficient profit, then why not let someone who can make better use of the land buy it? That's the free market that the Tories and Farage and co are normally so in favour.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:29 pm
by Which Tyler
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:23 pm
As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.
If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.
In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.
#YourBodyYourRules
Passes with a majority of 55,a nd goes to committee, where the fun will start.
IMO, the current bill is set too tight; but I doubt that it'll get any looser.
What it really needs is a royal commission to take its time, gather evidence, look at the lay of the land in other countries, learn from their successes and their mistakes; and suggest a new law, based on "intolerable suffering", including the suffering of mental health.
MEanwhile, I'd like one of those MPs voting against this because palliative care is a mess - introduce a member's bill to address palliative care then - these things are NOT mutually exclusive.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2024 5:56 pm
by Donny osmond
Not sure how I feel about assisted dying tbh. Some of the stories of coercion from other countries are truly awful, but I also can't get past the idea that we should be allowed to choose the time and manner of our own passing if we want to. And there are plenty of equally awful stories of people dying in agony precisely because they weren't given the option of choosing their own passing when it was a choice they were able to make.
It can't be beyond the wit of man to craft a law that is cognisant of both sides of the argument, surely?
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:23 pm
As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.
If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.
In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.
#YourBodyYourRules
Passes with a majority of 55,a nd goes to committee, where the fun will start.
IMO, the current bill is set too tight; but I doubt that it'll get any looser.
What it really needs is a royal commission to take its time, gather evidence, look at the lay of the land in other countries, learn from their successes and their mistakes; and suggest a new law, based on "intolerable suffering", including the suffering of mental health.
MEanwhile, I'd like one of those MPs voting against this because palliative care is a mess - introduce a member's bill to address palliative care then - these things are NOT mutually exclusive.
Great result. I wrote to my MP about it and despite his claiming to be on the fence, he did vote in favour. I guess a Labour government can do good things after all.
The details of the vote are interesting. Labour were about 3:2 in favour, Tories 6:1 against, Libdems 6:1 for. Reform were split (surprisingly) but of course the Greens were all for. (Ratios are a guess based on the graphics).
I'm pleasantly surprised to see Starmer in favour (but Corbyn against ). Not a shock that Farage and Badenoch were against but Lee Anderson, Richard Tice, Rishi Sunak and David Davies were for
). Not a shock that Farage and Badenoch were against but Lee Anderson, Richard Tice, Rishi Sunak and David Davies were for 