We are not going to agree on this.
But I will say that I agree with you. I don't think people should feel guilty. Not least because guilt is easy to feel.
Taking responsibility for past wrongs and taking concrete actions is far more difficult.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
But I will say that I agree with you. I don't think people should feel guilty. Not least because guilt is easy to feel.
Taking responsibility for past wrongs and taking concrete actions is far more difficult.
It's a bit like inheritance, whilst the inheritor did nothing to earn it they still benefit from it. And much like inheritance tax most people don't want to pay the reparations tax either.
During the 1770 Bengal famine the EIC were still ruthlessly collecting taxes from starving people just so money could still be sent back to the mother country. Britain's economy became so dependent on the exploitation of Bengal the economy would collapse without it, it resulted in the government bailing out the EIC when the S hit the fan. Britain wouldn't be the 6th biggest economy today which we all benefit from without this exploitation over multiple continents throughout the past.
Last edited:
Why not? It was the first industrialized nation on the planet. Has a sizeable population (70 million for UK) and Germany which had no real historical empire to speak of is ahead in both population terms and GDP. France is just behind England, which did have a sizeable empire. The Japanese are always in and around Germany (or just above it) and they never really had an empire after their failed attempt in the early twentieth century and then complete lack of any such thing thereafter.
England's history, sans slavery and slave trade, as well as its location (for other reasons), is such that putting its economic situation today down to what it was doing from 1600-1800 is a massive oversimplification.
I think you missed the point, and I disagree the actions of 1600-1900 has nothing to do with the economic or political position of the country today. Which was the main point I was trying to make, we have all benefitted from it to today whilst made other suffer and set them back decades, hence the discussion of reparations comes in. Is it the only reason for Britain's current standing? I agree probably not but is a big contributing factor.
Germany and Japan to their credit are quite unique in this respect, although both did have some overseas territories. Although, I don't see the relevance to the discussion whether modern Britain has benefitted from empire and them.
Your point is that the UK wouldn't be the sixth largest economy today if it weren't for the slave trade. I disagree. I use Japan and Germany as examples as to why the UK is roughly where it ought to be. Did it benefit from the slave trade? Yes. No one doubts it. It still benefits from it, depending on how you define slavery (absolute slavery across the global south, something like 40 million people iirc) and then of course wage-slavery which few, if any, can see to find a different economic model which moves people away from that.
I'm also in favour of reparations as it goes, as stated in this thread previously.
How do you know if the inheritors did nothing to earn in.
How do you know whether the children for example cared for or looked after their parent(s) or looked after the family home because their parents were not able to.
This isn't what I said either, the slave trade was just a part of a wider economic exploitation including natural resources and taxation of colonial subjects. I think we agree that modern Britain has reaped the benefits of this but disagree in the the degree of this benefit.
If children contributed to the upkeep of the home, then they could claim this back to reduce the tax liability.
I.e. parent moves into care. Child spends £X on essential maintenance/running costs. £X is then deducted from the final value of the estate as a debt owed by the parent to the child. For costs in exchange for care services provided by the child, I don't know for sure. I suppose it could be claimed that parent is to pay £x per hour in exchange for support received, and so is a debt owed by the estate (if hasn't yet been paid), or if it has been paid already then it would not contribute as a chargeable gift.
Is that him hinting that he’s going to stand up to Trump and shag the tea lady?
So he’s taxing rich people. They’re mad and them plus right wing grifters are making out like he’s having the most disastrous start as PM ever. That the gist?
Feels like there’s no chance they get re-elected with the way they’re already being smeared and how people are just rejecting the truth in favour of what they want to hear.
Feels like there’s no chance they get re-elected with the way they’re already being smeared and how people are just rejecting the truth in favour of what they want to hear.
It’s a interesting choice of Christmas film given the rumours about his marriage.
From the little bits I’ve seen the policy will also feck over some small farmers as well. The problem is Labour aren’t doing anything significantly good for anyone so this new policy feels like just another kick.
It’s standard bureaucratic managed decline. Here’s your bowl of misery slob so you better enjoy it! All coming from a guy who doesn’t buy his own clothes.
If Reform and The tories get together then Labour have a chance of losing imo.
A lot of the petition is from people overseas, I saw links where people were pushing out lists of London postcodes people could use to register their vote with, musk tweeted about it for instance, so take the numbers with a grain of salt.
The real question is how many who voted for him in july have signed this now, but I doubt we will ever know that one.
Starmer must resign!
I wouldn't necessarily call it taxing the rich myself. Especially when many people who defend the tax tend to point out various tax loopholes to get around it when defending it.
A key difference between agricultural land in contrast to residential property are the retention rates. Agricultural land is more often retained due to the historical significance and the legacy of generational farmers. Residential property lesser so, especially given those who inherit it rarely depend on their parents garden for their livelihood.
I feel that when analysing this tax the retention rates need to be taken into account because if the majority of farmers have no intention of selling the land then the value of the land is less important. The value of the land is an external factor outside of a farmers control and only had relevance if the farmer intended to sell it.
My concern is that the tax could result in farmers selling land they would never intend to sell simply due to this inheritance tax and affordability. If that's the case then I can't help but also feel cynical about the prospective buyers of said land especially if farmers need to do it out of necessity to pay a tax bill.
Do I personally think these taxes are really an attack on the rich to address inequality? Not at all. I think it's poorly thought out and divisive policy which is being portrayed as a tax on the wealthy but instead will likely impact struggling farmers much more than the wealthiest people in this country.
Keir Starmer has had 4 years of zero scrutiny or accountable as Labour leader. His treatment of the left wing has been factional and divisive and it's about time he received some pressure. If he wanted to address inequalities then he could start with implementing his 10 pledges he made to become labour leader.
Starmer has no good will from the left wing who he has spent the last 8 years working against and purging from within the Labour Party. The issues with Labour run much deeper than Starmer too and impact local CLPs and the NEC too. Even a change in leadership I don't think will garner much support without radical policy change.
Basically the Labour Party is fecked and if it continues along this current trajectory then just like in France and USA, I don't think a manifesto of "vote me to keep the far right out" will work. Given Starmer and his cronies destruction of the Labour movement since he became leader, cynically part of me thinks that they don't even fear a move to Farage. They put alot more effort into fighting the Green party, Workers Party and Independants than they did fighting Farage in Clacton.
Starmer must resign!
I read he has become pescatarian. Still doesn’t explain why he likes cooking ham pasta bake, even more so as his wife and children are Jewish. Maybe he cooks it and then throws it in the bin?
This the key group, anyone 'working' should be able to escape the definition of 'being poor', it maybe they are 'not well off', or even living 'pay cheque to pay cheque' (as they say in the US), but to be holding down a job(s) and still unable to survive is a disgrace in a country like Britain.
Starmer is committed to changing this fundamental base-line issue, and after the 'sh*t show' of 14 years with the Tories, it's going to take 10 years at least and it needs to be a 'rooted change', so that; Employment, Housing, Health and Education systems are all sustainable, and everybody in the country has to pay into the system, and to dip into their pockets.... and those with the deepest pockets pay most.
Stick to your guns Sir Keir, ignore the Tory Press and the 'naysayers' in your own ranks.
He doesn't. The quote was misheard and misreported. The actual quote is about the bake being hand made, not made of ham.
Asked what his signature dish was, he replied: "It's the one the kids make me do over and over again. It's a pasta bake where you do layers of handmade sauce then different cheeses... which I wouldn't say is necessarily the best."
Sigh...
It puzzles me how people manage to read such crap on twitter in the first place, never mind posting it as well.
Confirmation bias in action.
I didn’t post the “quote”. I merely responded to a post on here from @Sweet Square . If it was a misreported quote, then so be it. But anyway, given his spineless reaction to the ICC ruling, I’m getting past the point of giving Starmer the benefit of the doubt.
Then so called journalists turn into something else entirely.
Exactly, like him or loathe him Starmer and his 'sticking to his guns' approach has put the 'sh*ts up' the all the Tories, including the right-wing press. Expect more and more of this rubbish.
The interesting thing may be the effect on support for Reform; a lot of their support at the last election stemmed from disappointed 'red wall' constituents...who drifted from Boris to Reform..... these may even drift back to Labour, now that the Tory Party and Reform are beginning to 'cosy-up'... especially over issues like IHT on Farm Land and that well known 'Farmer Jeremy' leading the way.
He hasn't done anything anti immigration or anti asylum seeker, he's just processed them quicker.
Struggling farmers on the whole are a problem for the UK. Our farming industry is decades behind on investments, and just giving failing farms money only keep them going as inefficient.
Wake up babe, the Starmer Party just redrew the borders of the Middle East live on Sky News.
As replies to that tweet say, pat is saying the exact same thing to justify the israeli invasion as putin used to justify going into Ukraine. In seeking to defend the indefensible, he legitimises the criminals.
He isn't fit to run a whelk stall, never mind a country.
Ugh, nasty. Anyone who eats whelks needs to be separated from the rest of society. fecking rank, nasty slugs of the sea. I swear if people came here when they are landed and smelled them they would never eat them shain. They are landed in 60 kilo sacks and left on pallets waiting to be collected by lorries and you can smell them from the other side of the quay. Honestly, I spent years at sea and have smelled some truly nasty shit, a decaying dolphin was the worst but not even close to whelks.
Very fitting post in this thread tbh as this whole shit show stinks.
Does anyone have a FT subscription? There's an article I want to read but its behind a pay wall :/
In Google type ft and then the article title, just the first few words will do. Couple of boxes come up to close down but then should be ok. If it doesn't work do the same in incognito mode.
I look at the ft front page every day and always see one article at least I want to read. After three you might need to open a different incognito tab.
Wow....what a fantastic little trick!
Thanks!
Thanks!