UKMT May 2017: Weak and Wobbly vs. Old and Knobbly

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May 2017: Weak and Wobbly vs. Old and Knobbly

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/85751/theresa-may-give-me-mandate-big

quote:

Theresa May has claimed that Emmanuel Macron's thumping French presidential election victory shows why she must win a large majority on 8 June.
The Prime Minister said she needed "an equally strong mandate" to take into the Brexit negotiations.
And she warned voters not to elect a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn, who she said would not be able to stand up to "the might of the European Commission" in the Brexit talks.
...
Surrounded by Tory election candidates, the Prime Minister said: "Yesterday, a new French president was elected. He was elected with a strong mandate which he can take as a strong position in the negotiations.
"In the UK, we need to ensure we've got an equally strong mandate to take into those negotiations.
"Every vote for me and my team will strengthen my hand in those negotiations. The alternative is to risk making Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister.
"Try to picture him sitting at that negotiating table with the collective might of the European Commission and 27 other European countries against him.
"A vote for any other party is a vote to be a step closer to Jeremy Corbyn sitting at that Brexit negotiating table - we must not let that happen."
Mrs May also confirmed that the Tory pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands will be in her party's manifesto for the third election in a row.

That is quite some chutzpah.

Incidentally, Macron's manifesto has a lot to say about the EU and his desires for its trading arrangements which may be of some relevance to brexit (it's in French of course, but the Google translation is pretty good): https://en-marche.fr/emmanuel-macron/le-programme/europe

quote:

We will demand that a set of European social rights be established by setting minimum standards for training rights, health cover, unemployment insurance or minimum wage (at levels that take account of unequal development Member States).
We will demand that a set of European social rights be established by setting minimum standards for training rights, health cover, unemployment insurance or minimum wage (at levels that take account of unequal development Member States).
We will defend a "Buy European Act", which will allow access to European public procurement markets to companies that account for at least half of their production in Europe.
We will propose to set up at European level an instrument of control of foreign investments in Europe to preserve our strategic interests and sectors, like the United States or China or what exists in France.
We will propose to create a "European commercial prosecutor", to verify compliance with the commitments made by our partners and to punish quickly their violation, in particular in social, environmental or fiscal matters.
We will demand that all EU trade agreements incorporate a strand of tax cooperation and binding social and environmental clauses (lowering tariffs on "clean" goods and services as a matter of priority and introducing trade sanctions in Violations of social and environmental clauses).

Would be... interesting... to see those plans collide with the brexiteer turbonutter delusion of turning the UK into the Singapore of Europe.

# ¿ May 8, 2017 12:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:27

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/861569750274650112

e: and another one

https://twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/861625739376021507

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 8, 2017

# ¿ May 8, 2017 18:11

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

feedmegin posted:

No? My parents sold up the family home when they retired, downsized and moved up north (buying a second house as buy-to-let next to theirs, boo hiss). I didn't get a payout when that happened and I wouldn't expect one. If I get �� from them it'll be in their wills.

You and your parents are not necessarily representative, even of families with enough wealth to pass down meaningful assets. The "bank of mum and dad" is now the ninth largest mortgage lender in the country, which clearly shows that a lot of well to do parents are directly transferring cash to their kids long before death.

quote:

Parents are predicted to lend more than �6.5bn this year to help their children get on the property ladder as first-time buyers continue to struggle to afford homes.
This is a 30% increase on the �5bn loaned in 2016, according to research from Legal & General and economics consultancy Cebr, and means parents will be involved in more than 25% of UK property transactions.
The so-called bank of mum and dad will help fund property purchases worth about �75bn in 2017, the report says, including deposits for more than 298,000 mortgages. The �6.5bn figure is similar to the amount lent by the country�s ninth-biggest mortgage lender, Yorkshire Building Society, according to L&G.
Parental assistance is expected to have risen from an average of �17,000 in 2016 to �21,600 this year. Millennials are the biggest recipients, with 79% of the funding going to people under 30.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 20:04 on May 8, 2017

# ¿ May 8, 2017 20:01

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

A blue Wales, what a time to be alive.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/861598642158874625

# ¿ May 8, 2017 21:42

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/861726915572486145

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/861726711238590467

# ¿ May 9, 2017 01:14

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Zephro posted:

I'm struggling to think what kind of Lib Dem voter would go UKIP. People are weird.

The kind that voted for them in 2010 as a protest against Labour and Cameron's Tories?

# ¿ May 9, 2017 10:34

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Alchenar posted:

Actively campaigning for another party has historically been seen as just cause for expulsion, yes.

And it's not a little thing. This sort of deal can wipe your party out in a seat for decades the moment your supporters have license to go elsewhere and feel good about it.

On the other hand, there's a pretty strong precedent - Labour and the Lib Dems withdrew their candidates in Tatton in 1997 so Martin Bell could have a clear run against Neil Hamilton. Hunt won 60% of the vote in his constituency last time, so there's not much of a non-Tory base there to wipe out anyway.

# ¿ May 9, 2017 12:43

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/861915464976527360

# ¿ May 9, 2017 13:17

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

e: nvm, already posted

# ¿ May 9, 2017 19:25

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

DJT518T posted:

Have we reached full distopia yet ?

More like full "clueless chancers who've never heard of the tragedy of the commons or thought through their business model" in that particular case, I think.

# ¿ May 10, 2017 21:58

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Oberleutnant posted:

If you're eligible to pay tax you ought to have a vote just out of natural justice.

That probably wouldn't work very well because you're eligible to pay tax from the moment you are born:

https://www.jonathanford.co.uk/actors/childrens-tax/
There�s a common misconception that children don�t need to hand over any of their earned income from acting/modelling/voiceovers to the taxman. Unfortunately that�s not the case.
Regardless of age we all have to pay tax on earned income. We do all have a personal allowance though so if your income is below this amount (�10,000 for 2014/15) then there�s no tax due.

# ¿ May 11, 2017 14:01

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Firos posted:

Other than fox hunting and the fuel price cap, I don't think I could even name another Tory policy. And I'm quite interested in politics. Is it just me being oblivious?

Reintroducing grammar schools and cutting corporation tax again are two.

# ¿ May 11, 2017 16:59

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

namesake posted:

If you had a proper guarantee of a nationalised NHS with an agreed standardised system you could institute a staged roll on, where new facilities and departments all have to use the new developed system (and hopefully this staged approach would limit how many unique systems it would have to interface with) and eventually lead to enough roadtesting that older systems could be transferred over as well over two decades or so. I wonder if these IT projects were given that sort of timeline?

Windows XP is 15 years old. If you're rolling out your replacement system over a two decade period, isn't it going to be even more obsolete than XP is today by the time you're finished?

# ¿ May 13, 2017 11:52

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

This is quite a frontpage from the Heil:

No idea who the tubby bloke in the t-shirt is supposed to be, though.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 13:13 on May 13, 2017

# ¿ May 13, 2017 13:04

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Evil_Urna posted:

France, and they are teetering on the edge of a civil war there by some accounts.

Those accounts are written by crazy people who have no clue about anything whatsoever in France, just so you know.

# ¿ May 15, 2017 00:15

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-finally-accepts-brexit-10424465

quote:

Jeremy Corbyn has finally accepted the free movement of people from Europe must end with Brexit.
In an election interview with ITV to be broadcast on Monday, the Labour leader said he now accepts controls on immigration are essential.
�Clearly the free movement ends when we leave the European Union,� he said.
�There will be managed migration and it will be fair.�
Mr Corbyn�s admission is a significant shift for the Labour leader and brings him in line with his Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer, who has said repeatedly that free movement of people must end.

So that's Labour lining up in support of a hard Brexit and the loss of all single market benefits then.

# ¿ May 15, 2017 00:56

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

The juxtaposition of the "another incredible week for our campaign" video and the yougov regional analysis of Tory to Labour swings is really quite something.

# ¿ May 15, 2017 15:18

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Ewan posted:

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017

Manifesto and spending pdfs both gone live.

�48.6bn extra taxes, funding $48.6bn extra funding.

Boris Johnson wearing a red rose posted:

We will scrap the Conservatives� Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union � which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
...
Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.

# ¿ May 16, 2017 12:11

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

That is factually incorrect - Parliament has been dissolved and there are no sitting MPs.

# ¿ May 16, 2017 22:18

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/864612248635011072

Dennis Skinner ending his parliamentary career by losing his seat to a Tory would be quite something.

# ¿ May 17, 2017 00:03

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Angepain posted:

what is the cheapest form of identification a person can get? A passport? �72.50 to vote, please.

A provisional driver's licence is less than �30 afaik.

# ¿ May 18, 2017 13:23

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

ukmt may: actually, inherited wealth is very cool and good if you think about it

# ¿ May 18, 2017 16:55

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

OwlFancier posted:

Hey yeah we need you to pay for all of your granny's home care bills but don't worry you can wait till she's dead to do it, because you see the other option is that we fund it centrally which means that the person granny worked for for 40 years might have to pay for her arthritis and that'd be unfair lol.

Nobody needs you to pay for your granny's care home bills. Your granny's estate will do that. You are not your granny, or your granny's estate.

# ¿ May 18, 2017 20:22

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

OwlFancier posted:

Then "We think your granny should fund her own care so that the really rich don't have to"

No, "your granny's estate should contribute to the cost of her care if she has accumulated significant wealth, while still leaving a decent sum of money for her inheritors."

# ¿ May 18, 2017 20:38

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

OwlFancier posted:

"From the left"
"Everyone should pay for their own care."

The measure in question only applies to people who literally have enough wealth to buy a brand new private submersible, and guarantees that their inheritors will also receive at least enough wealth to buy a private submersible, so if they found themselves in the position of the guy at the bottom of the ladder in that poster, they could solve their problems by hopping into their private sub and motoring away merrily under the waves.

# ¿ May 18, 2017 21:50

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Pochoclo posted:

Net worth does not equal liquid wealth.

The person in question could have bought a home long ago when they were cheap, in Middle-of-Fuckingham, and barely be subsisting.

The measure only applies to people who are dead, and are thus well past subsisting.

# ¿ May 18, 2017 22:01

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Pochoclo posted:

Their family might be barely subsisting, and living there, and need the house to be able to survive, and when the person dies, and the house is reclaimed through debt, then the family is evicted, and they are poor and starving and on the streets.

The family is guaranteed to receive a minimum of �100k from the estate of the deceased if this measure has applied, so they're unlikely to be poor, starving, and on the streets.

Well, unless they immediately blow the inheritance on a private submersible, that is.

# ¿ May 18, 2017 22:11

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Angepain posted:

someone please find the nearest Crunchie and tell us what country it was made in, the future of our economy may depend on it

Actually, there was an interesting piece in the LRB about this the other day! They used to be made right here in Brizzle but now they're made in Poland: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n08/james-meek/somerdale-to-skarbimierz

# ¿ May 19, 2017 00:25

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Miftan posted:

Have an actual inheritance tax... without forcing people to sell off their house!

That is more or less what we have today. It doesn't raise very much money at all.

# ¿ May 19, 2017 10:54

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

fridge corn posted:

What happens if the worth of the estate is not enough to cover the cost of care plus the £100k? Is the care firm forced to take a loss in that case?

The government picks up the tab, afaik.

# ¿ May 19, 2017 10:58

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Miftan posted:

40% over 300k is not a proper inheritance tax.

OK, so what would be a proper inheritance tax that exempts a primary house, and how much do you believe it would raise?

# ¿ May 19, 2017 11:06

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

MrL_JaKiri posted:

Do you even know how the current system works?

The only people who will pay less money under the proposed system are those whose cash savings are between �23,500 and �100,000 who also either don't own a house or own a very very very cheap one.

People who have less than �23,500 in cash savings and own a home (with the value of their home and their savings combined worth more than �100,000) will pay more. In many cases a lot more.

Everyone else pays the same.

The second group is a lot bigger than the first one, and includes a lot more people who have never had very much but lucked into getting a house when they were actually affordable.

Yes, it's unfair that houses are more expensive now, but that's down to a lot more than just old people owning houses and the solution is not "force owner occupiers to sell to large companies".

There is nothing to suggest there will be a forced sale to large companies, and the measure only meaningfully affects dead people who have significantly more property wealth than most: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12083/full

# ¿ May 19, 2017 11:35

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

MrL_JaKiri posted:

It'll affect people who have around the median level of wealth

No, it will not meaningfully affect anyone passing down around the median level of wealth. In the worst case "around the median" scenario - where the dead person's property wealth is a few grand above the median for the oldest group - the inheritor would have to take out a tiny mortgage of a few grand to secure the house. Since the cost of servicing that mortgage would be vastly lower than any rent they might realistically be paying pre-inheritance, they're still coming out miles ahead.

# ¿ May 19, 2017 12:08

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

jBrereton posted:

Apart from the fact that it would be up to the estate agents to value what they thought their after-100k slice of the pie was "worth" which is very obviously the most abuseable poo poo possible and just one part of why this legislation is indefensibly gash if you have A Clue.

There is no reason whatsoever for an estate agent to be involved in the transaction if the buyer is the inheritor.

Oh dear me posted:

If they've been living with their parents as carers they've probably not been paying any rent, and not everyone can get a mortgage you smug fucker.

In JaKiri's "around the median" case, where "around" means "slightly above," you'd be talking about a mortgage payment on the order of a few tens of pounds a month that would be trivially serviceable on the state pension or minimum wage alone.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 12:55 on May 19, 2017

# ¿ May 19, 2017 12:52

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

jBrereton posted:

I do technically mean surveyors, yes, you're right.
But they are extremely open to graft as anyone who's ever bought or sold a house will tell you...

This is categorically untrue because I've bought a house myself, and also helped my brother when he bought his place. I don't see how there's any room for graft in the process. It's especially hard to see how it could be rigged in the case of an inheritance because the valuation of the house has to be accepted by HMRC - they need it to determine whether the appropriate inheritance tax has been paid.

baka kaba posted:

If granny's family inherits her �150K house and �50,000 of that needs to pay off her care bills, they either need to produce that money from somewhere or sell the house. So for the people who'll struggle to meet that expense, that means an estate agent is getting involved no?

An estate agent may be involved if the house is sold on the open market, but that comment wasn't about sales on the open market ("there is no reason whatsoever for an estate agent to be involved in the transaction if the 'buyer' is the inheritor"), it was about the inheritor being given the house in the will of the deceased and raising funds privately to cover the excess care home fees so they could acquire the house directly rather than selling it and inheriting some of the cash from the proceeds.

Also, the median property wealth of all households is only �50k, and that of households where the head is above retirement age is below �100k, so if granny owns outright a property worth �150k, she is pretty deep into the top half of the property wealth range.

# ¿ May 19, 2017 15:38

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

jabby posted:

Saying Thornberry 'seemed to suggest' something rather than quoting her implies she said no such thing.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/elections/general-election-2017/lbcs-election-call/emily-thornberry-does-not-rule-out-trident/
When asked if Trident would definitely continue as Labour party policy even after such review had taken place, Emily Thornberry replied: �No, of course not, if you�re going to have a review, you have to have a review.�

# ¿ May 19, 2017 23:42

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

kingturnip posted:

I'm not sure what your point is

My point is that she did indeed explicitly say that Trident could be scrapped under a Corbyn-led government, exactly as the newsnight interviewer claimed she did.

# ¿ May 20, 2017 00:03

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/865533998902108160

# ¿ May 20, 2017 13:50

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

big scary monsters posted:

Scrapping the license fee and running the state broadcasting service out of normal tax income seems fine. Have to admit I've only given it about twenty seconds thought though.

The idea of the licence fee was to prevent the BBC's funding from being dependent on the whims of the government of the day.

# ¿ May 20, 2017 15:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:27

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/86112/david-davis-warns-uk-will-quit-brexit-talks-if-eu

quote:

David Davis has warned that Britain will walk away from the negotiating table unless the EU drops calls for the UK to cough up �100bn as part of its Brexit bill.
The Brexit Secretary told the Sunday Times talks would be plunged into �crisis� from the outset because Brussels has refused to discuss a trade deal before Britain settles its outstanding financial obligations.
He also warned that he considers even �1bn "a lot of money", claimed officials in the European Commission have "axes to grind" and accused other EU member states of failing to tell the truth.
Responding to Mr Davis� remarks a senior EU negotiator told the same paper the chances of the UK leaving the EU without a fresh deal were now �over 50%�.
Theresa May also today insisted money paid in the past by Britain must be factored in by the European Union when calculating the UK�s divorce bill from Brussels.
As member states prepare to sign off on a legally binding negotiating position tomorrow, sources claimed they will demand the UK pays more than �100bn in outstanding obligations.
In an interview with the Sunday Times Mr Davis said: "We don�t need to just look like we can walk away, we need to be able to walk away. Under the circumstances, if that was necessary, we would be in a position to do it."
But a senior EU source told the paper: �For the first time in living memory there is a complete consensus: the net payers refuse to pay more cash into the budget and the net recipients refuse to accept losing some of their handouts � they all have a vested interest in maximising the amount that Britain will be due to pay upon leaving.�

FINE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE THAT WAY WE ARE TAKING OUR BALL AND GOING HOME!!!!

# ¿ May 21, 2017 09:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May 2017: Weak and Wobbly vs. Old and Knobbly

«‹›3 »