New Tory Leader

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 17/01/2024 at 17:26, Herman said:

Honest and clean.....😐

 

It's true though, isn't it? But Starmer isn't the only Labour lawyer to make a fortune out of grooming gangs, illegal immigrants and terrorists. The chances of Labour tackling immigration is about as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

59 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

@sonyc @TheGunnShow appreciate you have not come back to me on where you see the campaign but thought i'd illustrate my point anyway.

I don't usually watch question time but I caught tonight's.  It was a perfect example of where I see the campaign going.   On questions about the NHS and rwanda the tory candidate tried very hard to emphasise in a quietly assertive manner the question to his Labour candidate "and what would you do? Do you actually have a plan?" 

It's a challenge and a trap and it's the way I see the campaign continuing.  

Rishi Sunak has been running his government based on five key topics, if you recall. I can't remember now what they were and am not particularly interested in finding out but I presume his campaign will be saying 'judge me on how well I have done in these five areas', which why he is so desperate to get at least one Rawandan flight away and why there will be some tax cuts in the Spring.

I also agree with you on how he will attack Labour. Starmer will want to keep his cards close to his chest so as not to provide any lines of attack, so Sunak will go with the 'you've got no plans' line.

Labour's actual plans for government will closely resemble current Tory policies. Perhaps a little more spending funded by higher borrowing and a raid on pensions, while they will likely tear up Rawanda plan but find themselves with no solution for cutting immigration and they'll kick the problem down the road for the next five years.

[Herman 9,817]

6 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

It's true though, isn't it? But Starmer isn't the only Labour lawyer to make a fortune out of grooming gangs, illegal immigrants and terrorists. The chances of Labour tackling immigration is about as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas.

Yep, this is the sort of nonsense we're going to have to put up with for the next few months. No evidence, no policy but just straight from the gutter smear campaigning. Tiresome.

Time to go right wingers, you had your moment in the sun and you ****ed it up spectacularly.

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

From last nights QT, watch it, some of you might learn something.

 

 

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Yep, this is the sort of nonsense we're going to have to put up with for the next few months. No evidence, no policy but just straight from the gutter smear campaigning. Tiresome.

Twitter is a weird thing, it sometimes makes us go to accounts that we know we'll disagree with and which will irritate us.  No one would go into a library and take out a book they know they will find offensive or tiresome but there is something about 120 character tweets that not only draws us in but also encourages us to amplify them.

I'm increasingly thinking that twitter is evil.  It is never the voices in the middle or the conciliatory accounts that get the clicks only the nutters on the edges in equal measure.

Seems to me that the message might even be irrelevant in a lot of tweets, we just like to metaphorically shout out of the window. It doesn't matter what we shout we just want someone, anyone, to turn around and look at us.

The real buh was right. Its a poisoned ecosystem and the world is better off without it.  I'll write a letter of complaint- just after I see what Nigel Farage and Joleon Maughan have posted today

Edited January 19 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,817]

Your mate Rocky isn't writing on twitter.

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

9 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

@sonyc @TheGunnShow appreciate you have not come back to me on where you see the campaign but thought i'd illustrate my point anyway.

I don't usually watch question time but I caught tonight's.  It was a perfect example of where I see the campaign going.   On questions about the NHS and rwanda the tory candidate tried very hard to emphasise in a quietly assertive manner the question to his Labour candidate "and what would you do? Do you actually have a plan?" 

It's a challenge and a trap and it's the way I see the campaign continuing.  

There will always be more than one strategy. Herman already showed a fine example with that nonsense re. Starmer beforehand. The Tory social media team will definitely make plenty of use of similar tactics as it suits social media - short, hyper-pithy, easily memorised tropes that can sink in.

When you're as far back as the Tories are now (although it looks like the adjustment of the seats may have favoured them slightly, and we don't know about this new rule re. expats and voting rights as suddenly several million more people can vote in a General Election now) then they'll use every trick they can think of.

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

22 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Twitter is a weird thing, it sometimes makes us go to accounts that we know we'll disagree with and which will irritate us.  No one would go into a library and take out a book they know they will find offensive or tiresome but there is something about 120 character tweets that not only draws us in but also encourages us to amplify them.

I'm increasingly thinking that twitter is evil.  It is never the voices in the middle or the conciliatory accounts that get the clicks only the nutters on the edges in equal measure.

Seems to me that the message might even be irrelevant in a lot of tweets, we just like to metaphorically shout out of the window. It doesn't matter what we shout we just want someone, anyone, to turn around and look at us.

The real buh was right. Its a poisoned ecosystem and the world is better off without it.  I'll write a letter of complaint- just after I see what Nigel Farage and Joleon Maughan have posted today

As someone who has never used Twitter, and doesn't intend to ever, my experience of it is by definition second-hand but of course you get those second-hand glimpses of it all the time.

IMO, right from the start it had a rather unhealthy side to it and that has steadily increased over the years - then the Musk takeover elevated it to a whole new level where a description of it as evil is probably justified. Obviously that's not true of all the content but I would suggest that it unarguably causes a great deal more harm than good.

It has baffled me for years why our utterly useless government (I suppose that may be a clue 😀 ) has failed to introduce legislation that hold Twitter, and the other tech platforms, to the same standards as our printed, broadcast, other electronic publishers are all held and made accountable for the content that they publish instead of allowing these tech platforms to hide behind the absolutely nonsensical line that they are not the publishers of what their platforms pump out.

Unless and until that happens then things will continue to get worse because bizzarrely the one and only check on these social media platforms seems to be the worry of scaring off advertisers who don't want their adverts appearing alongside vile content and in reality even the advertisers are part of an ecosystem which is essentially a race to the bottom.

[sonyc 5,541]

I can see what people mean by Twitter / X being a bad influence (or even evil) but I don't think I agree overall. I rarely see very strong views of either side, certainly not outrageous stuff. And I've been a member for many years (hardly ever post unless it's to a former colleague or friend to wish them well). I am in the platform mainly for 3 things - art, music, architecture. In that order. I sometimes see the news items, but I'm sensible enough not to get outraged by anything of controversy (any real annoyance comes from within not without). I like landscape photography, history, archeology, nature and cartoons too (which I sometimes share here) plus I have a whole range of other interests actually. Twitter brings me something I don't think I could access so easily. I'm less enamoured with Instagram which is about influencers, Facebook is okay but rather dated. Pinterest is fine for design.

If you want to be reasonable with other posters it is absolutely possible, even the ones you don't agree with or even don't especially like. We have independent minds and we can choose to use them. There really isn't any need to be nasty or insulting because we ought to be happy enough in our own skins not to hit out. People who insult simply show their own weakness. That's my opinion on it.

I dislike personal attacks on social media against politicians. If they are funny because they expose a truth then that's a form of satire. When it is threatening it's pathetic and cowardly.

The barbarians are indeed at the gate. But I'm thinking this really applies to our own minds. Folk can get on together and if  not they need to learn. The one common thing we all have is that our lives will end at some stage. In between times we just try and get along with our neighbours.

In short, if you want to see bad things in folk, you'll look out for it.

Strictly back to the next election, I think it will be all out social media and gutter press warfare. I don't expect any moral leads there or a call for consideration of other viewpoints!

Edited January 19 by sonyc
Typing on a phone without glasses

[Herman 9,817]

55 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

As someone who has never used Twitter, and doesn't intend to ever, my experience of it is by definition second-hand but of course you get those second-hand glimpses of it all the time.

IMO, right from the start it had a rather unhealthy side to it and that has steadily increased over the years - then the Musk takeover elevated it to a whole new level where a description of it as evil is probably justified. Obviously that's not true of all the content but I would suggest that it unarguably causes a great deal more harm than good.

It has baffled me for years why our utterly useless government (I suppose that may be a clue 😀 ) has failed to introduce legislation that hold Twitter, and the other tech platforms, to the same standards as our printed, broadcast, other electronic publishers are all held and made accountable for the content that they publish instead of allowing these tech platforms to hide behind the absolutely nonsensical line that they are not the publishers of what their platforms pump out.

Unless and until that happens then things will continue to get worse because bizzarrely the one and only check on these social media platforms seems to be the worry of scaring off advertisers who don't want their adverts appearing alongside vile content and in reality even the advertisers are part of an ecosystem which is essentially a race to the bottom.

A Leveson 2 inquiry which includes all social media would be a great idea, not that any party will propose it. Some form of regulation is necessary as most of our media is now in the hands of a handful of billionaires, including unhinged loons like Musk.

As to twitter it is now a mess, filled with RWNJs, pornbots and very dodgy adverts. There are some very good communities and people on there as Sonyc says but the amount of chaff means a lot more blocking than should be is necessary .

[Yellow Fever 3,817]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

I can see what people mean by Twitter / X being a bad influence (or even evil) but I don't think I agree overall. I rarely see very strong views of either side, certainly not outrageous stuff. And I've been a member for many years (hardly ever post unless it's to a former colleague or friend to wish them well). I am in the platform mainly for 3 things - art, music, architecture. In that order. I sometimes see the news items, but I'm sensible enough not to get outraged by anything of controversy (any real annoyance comes from within not without). I like landscape photography, history, archeology, nature and cartoons too (which I sometimes share here) plus I have a whole range of other interests actually. Twitter brings me something I don't think I could access so easily. I'm less enamoured with Instagram which is about influencers, Facebook is okay but rather dated. Pinterest is fine for design.

If you want to be reasonable with other posters it is absolutely possible, even the ones you don't agree with or even don't especially like. We have independent minds and we can choose to use them. There really isn't any need to be nasty or insulting because we ought to be happy enough in our own skins not to hit out. People who insult simply show their own weakness. That's my opinion on it.

I dislike personal attacks on social media against politicians. If they are funny because they expose a truth then that's a form of satire. When it is threatening it's pathetic and cowardly.

The barbarians are indeed at the gate. But I'm thinking this really applies to our own minds. Folk can get on together and if  not they need to learn. The one common thing we all have is that our lives will end at some stage. In between times we just try and get along with our neighbours.

In short, if you want to see bad things in folk, you'll look out for it.

Strictly back to the next election, I think it will be all out social media and gutter press warfare. I don't expect any moral leads there or a call for consideration of other viewpoints!

Yes SC. The sad truth is that you are sensible enough to question and think through what you may read - to filter out the nonsense or worse. Many seem incapable of doing that and the fall into echo chambers that simply reinforce their questionable views. I do wonder for instance if the Trump 'bandwagon' and the true believers could of existed in any numbers pre social-media? I think not.

Frankly that's why it needs some form of better regulation - certainly factually incorrect and libelous post should be removed.

[sonyc 5,541]

45 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes SC. The sad truth is that you are sensible enough to question and think through what you may read - to filter out the nonsense or worse. Many seem incapable of doing that and the fall into echo chambers that simply reinforce their questionable views. I do wonder for instance if the Trump 'bandwagon' and the true believers could of existed in any numbers pre social-media? I think not.

Frankly that's why it needs some form of better regulation - certainly factually incorrect and libelous post should be removed.

Thank you (and Herman) because I didn't think anyone would especially agree with me. The points I was trying to make is that you can read absolutely anything and see grains of truth in it, or there is at least an argument.

And absolutely agree about regulation. Musk has something to answer for. I agree strongly too that social media helps folk like Trump.

On a personal l level I haven't ever had to block anyone but then I don't put out stuff or have a profile. I feel for people who do, have to be in the public eye.

I've no idea why anyone for example should wish to be famous. What is the point! You can live quietly and happily without needing fame. Maybe I'm just so introverted (and weird) but I've never wanted to post pictures of myself or where I'm going or of family having food or drinking ... or showing off. It is as if, like Attwood says, we have this inner need to immortalise ourselves. 

It's a quandary though. Do you shut up completely? Never sharing anything? It's a delicate balance to try and find. I paint (and sell) and for the last two months I'm making music again (it's as if I'm back to being in my late twenties with a digital studio) ...but then should you ever share? Art and music is about that because it is life affirming (and actually I believe it's part of a purpose to share) and yet to do so contains risk not to mention the embarrassment of disclosure of a deeper part of yourself.

It's why I've often felt like not posting at all here. A constant bloody debate I have with myself. Am I the only one who thinks like that? Mrs S thinks I need to throw my hat on the air more often. She's probably right. Anyway, I'm digressing...but then she also thinks I ought not post because I tell her what people generally are thinking (politically) and she believes it's just a kind of playground and not worth the time arguing. And what can we really do anyway?

Yet, on the other hand, like the French are predisposed to do in bars, I would miss the interaction and the more serious discussion of world affairs...and I find the Pinkun a fantastic microcosm of the world - with terrific thinkers. I get a lot of my news directly from this place! On anything and everything. In that respect it's brilliant.

I'm stuck aren't I? Between a rock.....🙃

 

[Yellow Fever 3,817]

40 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yet, on the other hand, like the French are predisposed to do in bars, I would miss the interaction and the more serious discussion of world affairs...and I find the Pinkun a fantastic microcosm of the world - with terrific thinkers. I get a lot of my news directly from this place! On anything and everything. In that respect it's brilliant.

I'm stuck aren't I? Between a rock.....🙃

Keep Posting SC. We don't always have to align or agree but yes there is always a grain of truth in what most people say. It can be difficult to discern sometimes though! 

I highlighted the above section above because this forum isn't an echo chamber and for the most part we can and do have differing views and life experiences (Herman knows a lot I think about the horticultural industry and associated import/export issues for instance). You know about social service and health - I have my niches as well ('big' science and industry with more stories to tell and names to drop than I care for) even if my wife wants me to retire!

I can agree with Fen on many issues and disagree on others! 

I hope we all have something to learn or at least be challenged. I hate absolute positions.

[Nuff Said 5,156]

Marina Hyde has nailed it once again. The woman is a national treasure.

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/19/tories-squid-game-rwanda-policy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Hilariously, Sunak insists anyone failing to get behind all this just wants to take us “back to square one”. Square one? Oh man – who wouldn’t take square one in a heartbeat? We’re somewhere near square minus 39 here, receding backwards through the squares until the place of utter darkness beyond all squares.”
 

“Conservative MPs can war game/Squid Game their way through various amendment scenarios, and work out in private that resigning over a bill you then end up voting for (Brendan Clarke-Smith) is tactically on a par with being so hungry you kill yourself for food.”

 

[Well b back 3,259]

There is not time today to quote various things individually that show our country falling apart, ( there are to many ) so I thought I would just quote all the headlines from the papers ( a couple of course will be irrelevant ). The public polls on Rwanda, yet Sunak still says and even more so those on the right that the public want it, how Brexit has destroyed the environment, how the US and EU are close to no longer considering the U.K. as a fighting force as we only have 70,000 soldiers, how 1/2 billion pounds has gone to Tata, who are binning 3000 jobs, how Hunt is going to bring down taxes, just simply as an attempt to bring down the next Labour government, and something close to my heart as a health worker, measles’s. Of course they will blame for the outbreak anything but themselves, but they knew what was happening and did not nothing to stop it. Once again as well they let anti vaxers rule the waves, and when the first outbreaks occurred they learnt nothing from Covid and let it spread. I hear you saying ah it won’t hurt the kids, but there are already many in hospital with severe symptoms. If you are pregnant and come into contact with measles this could be devastating. Adults who haven’t been vaccinated, it could be deadly. To put it into context, if I as a healthcare worker come into contact with measles I have to quarantine for 21 days, so you can guess what this disease that the government have allowed to come back can result in. 

It is simply time to call an election. Will Labour sort the mess out ? I have no idea, but to those who rubbish them as a Tory voter I have to say they now should be given the chance, it really can’t get worse. As a country we should not be allowing them to give the next government an impossible task to try and put things right.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-68038593

[Fen Canary 855]

11 hours ago, Well b back said:

There is not time today to quote various things individually that show our country falling apart, ( there are to many ) so I thought I would just quote all the headlines from the papers ( a couple of course will be irrelevant ). The public polls on Rwanda, yet Sunak still says and even more so those on the right that the public want it, how Brexit has destroyed the environment, how the US and EU are close to no longer considering the U.K. as a fighting force as we only have 70,000 soldiers, how 1/2 billion pounds has gone to Tata, who are binning 3000 jobs, how Hunt is going to bring down taxes, just simply as an attempt to bring down the next Labour government, and something close to my heart as a health worker, measles’s. Of course they will blame for the outbreak anything but themselves, but they knew what was happening and did not nothing to stop it. Once again as well they let anti vaxers rule the waves, and when the first outbreaks occurred they learnt nothing from Covid and let it spread. I hear you saying ah it won’t hurt the kids, but there are already many in hospital with severe symptoms. If you are pregnant and come into contact with measles this could be devastating. Adults who haven’t been vaccinated, it could be deadly. To put it into context, if I as a healthcare worker come into contact with measles I have to quarantine for 21 days, so you can guess what this disease that the government have allowed to come back can result in. 

It is simply time to call an election. Will Labour sort the mess out ? I have no idea, but to those who rubbish them as a Tory voter I have to say they now should be given the chance, it really can’t get worse. As a country we should not be allowing them to give the next government an impossible task to try and put things right.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-68038593

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/14/30390/2
 

This implies there’s more that support the Rwanda policy than oppose it

[Well b back 3,259]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/14/30390/2
 

This implies there’s more that support the Rwanda policy than oppose it

That was November 23.

Maybe I move in the wrong circles, but I only know of 3 people ( and they want the more powerful version, not Sunaks ) that support this. On QT as well, was there not hardly anyone that put their hands up in support ? I will happily stand corrected on this.

To show what a state this is all in, most of my friends and family have voted Tory ( me included ) all their lives, and I for one would have been horrified to hear my kids saying they were voting Labour. I have to say though that most of those will be voting Labour ( me included ) and I am fully supportive of my kids doing the same. The majority of those that are not voting something other than Tory, say they will not vote unless Boris is back in place, but if Johnson comes back, those few that were voting Tory will vote for whoever has a chance against the Tory candidate.

[Fen Canary 855]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

That was November 23.

Maybe I move in the wrong circles, but I only know of 3 people ( and they want the more powerful version, not Sunaks ) that support this. On QT as well, was there not hardly anyone that put their hands up in support ? I will happily stand corrected on this.

To show what a state this is all in, most of my friends and family have voted Tory ( me included ) all their lives, and I for one would have been horrified to hear my kids saying they were voting Labour. I have to say though that most of those will be voting Labour ( me included ) and I am fully supportive of my kids doing the same. The majority of those that are not voting something other than Tory, say they will not vote unless Boris is back in place, but if Johnson comes back, those few that were voting Tory will vote for whoever has a chance against the Tory candidate.

I’ll admit everybody is a product of their environment, as I know many more people for it than against it so that obviously skews our perception about how popular or unpopular a policy actually is. I’ve actually no problem with it, offshore processing works as a deterrent in Australia so I see no reason it can’t work in Britain, however I’ve no faith in the UK government to actually follow through with anything.

I’ll agree on the Tories though, they deserve everything that’s coming their way. I don’t detect a great deal of affection or support for Starmer or Labour (not in the same way as there was for Blair the last time Labour got into government) but the Tories are that abject now Labour will almost win a landslide by default

[KiwiScot 1,459]

Expat voting. I'm unsure how many

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/22/tories-hire-coordinator-to-get-expat-supporters-to-vote-in-general-election

[Yellow Fever 3,817]

17 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Expat voting. I'm unsure how many

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/22/tories-hire-coordinator-to-get-expat-supporters-to-vote-in-general-election

"They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.

The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.

Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud. The Association of Electoral Administrators noted it would be challenging to enforce penalties for supplying false information or falsely attesting to applications from people overseas."

Yes - And the Tories were pushing ID and worried about electoral fraud. This looks like an open goal by comparison!

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

"They will then be able to vote by proxy, with one proxy voter able to vote on behalf of as many as four overseas voters.

The Electoral Commission raised concerns in response to an earlier consultation in 2016 that voters “might be tempted to choose a marginal seat they had once lived in rather than a safe seat even if it had not been the last address they lived at before leaving”.

Concerns were also raised about the difficulty of checking information and the potential for fraud. The Association of Electoral Administrators noted it would be challenging to enforce penalties for supplying false information or falsely attesting to applications from people overseas."

Yes - And the Tories were pushing ID and worried about electoral fraud. This looks like an open goal by comparison!

"The expansion means they will be able to register in the constituency of the last address at which they were resident if they are able to provide relevant documentation, or failing that, through local records or on the word of an eligible British resident."

I understand that scrapping the 15 year rule was part of the conservative manifesto, but registration on the basis of "on the word of an eligible British resident" is pushing it a bit!

Personally, I'm undecided whether to vote in the Sevenoaks constituency at the next election, as I will have been gone for over 6 years.

Perhaps there should be special overseas constituencies for British immigrants to other countries instead of based on the last address 

[Yellow Fever 3,817]

15 hours ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Perhaps there should be special overseas constituencies for British immigrants to other countries instead of based on the last address 

That would seem a good idea!

[ricardo 7,395]

And yet nobody seems to bothered about the right of citizens of the Irish Republic and Commonwealth citizens voting in our elections.

[king canary 7,653]

It is kind of hilarious that, despite all the issues at hand literally all the Tories have to offer is 'errrm...tax cuts?'

I think someone needs to explain to them that the kind of tax cuts they do don't actually have a huge effect on the every day person's wallet. 

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

It is kind of hilarious that, despite all the issues at hand literally all the Tories have to offer is 'errrm...tax cuts?'

I think someone needs to explain to them that the kind of tax cuts they do don't actually have a huge effect on the every day person's wallet. 

There seems to be regular bellyaching on inheritance tax, which is odd when only around 7% of estates are liable for it. If they really gave a rat's ****, that personal allowance would be hiked upwards considerably. That would have the benefit of being a rising tide for all ships, yet providing more succour to those who need it most.

[king canary 7,653]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

There seems to be regular bellyaching on inheritance tax, which is odd when only around 7% of estates are liable for it. If they really gave a rat's ****, that personal allowance would be hiked upwards considerably. That would have the benefit of being a rising tide for all ships, yet providing more succour to those who need it most.

From a political standpoint going at inheritance tax makes sense- it is a very unpopular tax even if many don't have to pay it. However you need that as part of wider range of tax cuts so it can't just be painted as tax relief for the richest. 

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

From a political standpoint going at inheritance tax makes sense- it is a very unpopular tax even if many don't have to pay it. However you need that as part of wider range of tax cuts so it can't just be painted as tax relief for the richest. 

It might not be overly popular, but in terms of fairness, a not inconsiderable proportion don't think it's high enough. I'd personally agree with any fiscal drag argument and therefore any argument that proposes increasing the threshold at which it applies.

Is inheritance tax really unpopular? New polling evidence (taxpolicy.org.uk)

Would probably say council tax and fuel duty might be more unpopular - and certainly affect far more people.

Inheritance tax seen as an unfair tax but others are prioritised for cuts | Ipsos

Edited January 23 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,817]

47 minutes ago, ricardo said:

And yet nobody seems to bothered about the right of citizens of the Irish Republic and Commonwealth citizens voting in our elections.

Obviously they shouldn't.

[Yellow Fever 3,817]

32 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

There seems to be regular bellyaching on inheritance tax, which is odd when only around 7% of estates are liable for it. If they really gave a rat's ****, that personal allowance would be hiked upwards considerably. That would have the benefit of being a rising tide for all ships, yet providing more succour to those who need it most.

Never understood the Tory obsession with IHT. Basically not a problem if your estate for most married people is under £650K but for those with lots of money a little legal (early) estate tax planning will circumvent a lot of it. Lots of exceptions i.e family farms.

Of course all those 'Eastenders' in their unearned £1M two up two downs may just come into it.

 

[Herman 9,817]

Bald men fighting over comb, yet again.😂