If you join the LibDems in a forest...
Comments
-
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?0 -
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?0 -
Do you think there was time before God existed? (In the hypothetical situation where you are a believer).kingstongraham said:
You think there was time "before" the big bang?TheBigBean said:
What was there before the big bang?focuszing723 said:The big one too, who created God?
The questions are essentially the same.
As an aside, Stephen Hawking spent 10 years of his life persuading the scientific world that the big bang was a singularity with nothing before it. Having done this, he then spent the next 10 years convincing them he was wrong.
I can't decide whether this is a demonstration of complete genius being able to convince the world of both positions.
0 -
Remind me how imposing your religious beliefs on others fits within liberalism. Religious freedom is a fairly core tenet of liberalism.Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think it's interesting that someone can simultaneously believe all homosexuals are condemned to hell, and be in favour of gay marriage. But I don't think it's particularly outrageous to think that the state shouldn't be playing the role of policing all sins.rick_chasey said:
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?
0 -
I'm quite happy accepting that the brain cannot conceive of an absence of time and space.TheBigBean said:
Do you think there was time before God existed? (In the hypothetical situation where you are a believer).kingstongraham said:
You think there was time "before" the big bang?TheBigBean said:
What was there before the big bang?focuszing723 said:The big one too, who created God?
The questions are essentially the same.
As an aside, Stephen Hawking spent 10 years of his life persuading the scientific world that the big bang was a singularity with nothing before it. Having done this, he then spent the next 10 years convincing them he was wrong.
I can't decide whether this is a demonstration of complete genius being able to convince the world of both positions.0 -
...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
He's not in favour of gay marriage, he's in favour of other people having the right to do so.Jezyboy said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think it's interesting that someone can simultaneously believe all homosexuals are condemned to hell, and be in favour of gay marriage. But I don't think it's particularly outrageous to think that the state shouldn't be playing the role of policing all sins.rick_chasey said:
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Another aside, Newton, who was even more amazing than Focuszing thinks Musk is, questioned the linearity of time. He did this in the 17th century. Completely mind blowing that he would do such a thing. Anyway, having wrestled with the issue for a while, he came to the conclusion it must be god's will.kingstongraham said:
I'm quite happy accepting that the brain cannot conceive of an absence of time and space.TheBigBean said:
Do you think there was time before God existed? (In the hypothetical situation where you are a believer).kingstongraham said:
You think there was time "before" the big bang?TheBigBean said:
What was there before the big bang?focuszing723 said:The big one too, who created God?
The questions are essentially the same.
As an aside, Stephen Hawking spent 10 years of his life persuading the scientific world that the big bang was a singularity with nothing before it. Having done this, he then spent the next 10 years convincing them he was wrong.
I can't decide whether this is a demonstration of complete genius being able to convince the world of both positions.
Perhaps we need a thread dedicated to Newton's brilliance.3 -
Well, if you take Starmer, for example, what are they? He has changed stated opinions every time it has been necessary, so we will only find out what they really are when he is in power, but even then his opinions will only be those that keep him in power for as long as possible.Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
I think he will rationalise this as him/labour being in power is far better than the Tories/Corbynites and thus the country is a better place.
In my case, my overall belief ("x") would be that everyone should be born with equal opportunity. One way of achieving this would be through greater inheritance tax, but it's an unelectable position, so I would need to campaign on the basis of improved education. Then when in power, I'd need to find a way to pay for it. I'd consider greater inheritance tax, then I'd realise I would lose the next election, so instead I would borrow more and promise growth.
0 -
I don't like coffee, but I'm willing to allow others to drink it. It's pretty charitable of me really, but the position is unlikely to confuse people.rjsterry said:
He's not in favour of gay marriage, he's in favour of other people having the right to do so.Jezyboy said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think it's interesting that someone can simultaneously believe all homosexuals are condemned to hell, and be in favour of gay marriage. But I don't think it's particularly outrageous to think that the state shouldn't be playing the role of policing all sins.rick_chasey said:
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?
Where it is harder is when someone states a position that crosses a moral line for many (e.g. being racist). It's then not enough to simply vote for equality measures on the basis of liberalism, because people are still offended by the original comments.
0 -
Luckily the bible doesn't say "thou must be racist".TheBigBean said:
I don't like coffee, but I'm willing to allow others to drink it. It's pretty charitable of me really, but the position is unlikely to confuse people.rjsterry said:
He's not in favour of gay marriage, he's in favour of other people having the right to do so.Jezyboy said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think it's interesting that someone can simultaneously believe all homosexuals are condemned to hell, and be in favour of gay marriage. But I don't think it's particularly outrageous to think that the state shouldn't be playing the role of policing all sins.rick_chasey said:
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?
Where it is harder is when someone states a position that crosses a moral line for many (e.g. being racist). It's then not enough to simply vote for equality measures on the basis of liberalism, because people are still offended by the original comments.
Don't think it actually says much about homosexuality either, certainly not the black and white rules some christians and non christians like to argue about.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I wonder what his voting record is for graven images.0
-
I am intrigued what your style of inheritance tax would look like and how much you would look to raise. Are you looking to raise revenue or level down the wealthy?TheBigBean said:
Well, if you take Starmer, for example, what are they? He has changed stated opinions every time it has been necessary, so we will only find out what they really are when he is in power, but even then his opinions will only be those that keep him in power for as long as possible.Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
I think he will rationalise this as him/labour being in power is far better than the Tories/Corbynites and thus the country is a better place.
In my case, my overall belief ("x") would be that everyone should be born with equal opportunity. One way of achieving this would be through greater inheritance tax, but it's an unelectable position, so I would need to campaign on the basis of improved education. Then when in power, I'd need to find a way to pay for it. I'd consider greater inheritance tax, then I'd realise I would lose the next election, so instead I would borrow more and promise growth.
I would have thought a broad based, low rate with no exemptions could be sold to the masses.0 -
That seems quite a different scenario to what actually happened. From memory, there was an assumption that he must be homophobic because of his religious beliefs and then an inane effort by some to try get him to say it aloud so that they could label him a hypocrite.TheBigBean said:
I don't like coffee, but I'm willing to allow others to drink it. It's pretty charitable of me really, but the position is unlikely to confuse people.rjsterry said:
He's not in favour of gay marriage, he's in favour of other people having the right to do so.Jezyboy said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think it's interesting that someone can simultaneously believe all homosexuals are condemned to hell, and be in favour of gay marriage. But I don't think it's particularly outrageous to think that the state shouldn't be playing the role of policing all sins.rick_chasey said:
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?
Where it is harder is when someone states a position that crosses a moral line for many (e.g. being racist). It's then not enough to simply vote for equality measures on the basis of liberalism, because people are still offended by the original comments.
He wasn't actively campaigning for discrimination, let alone voting for it. Arguing for the rights of others to do things you disapprove of is a pretty fundamental principle of liberalism so I really don't see a conflict between his personal beliefs and actions.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
This is actually a decent example of virtue signalling. He was compelled to signal something he didn't actually believe in, because the signal was more important than the outcome (his voting record).
Have often wondered why the "virtue signal" complainers didn't pick up on this particular story, as it's an actual rare real-life example.
Presumably because the nuance around his beliefs re-homosexuals would be lost.0 -
If I was God I would just want all things to treat others with respect and certainly not kill or hurt one another. That isn't a reflection of the chaos of nature, the Universe.0
-
surely with our bizarre political system the importance is in trying to deduce what somebody truly believes in so that if they do get into a positionof power you know what you will be getting.rick_chasey said:This is actually a decent example of virtue signalling. He was compelled to signal something he didn't actually believe in, because the signal was more important than the outcome (his voting record).
Have often wondered why the "virtue signal" complainers didn't pick up on this particular story, as it's an actual rare real-life example.
Presumably because the nuance around his beliefs re-homosexuals would be lost.
This was the genius of Boris in that nobody knew what he truly believed in but were prepared to believe that it was the same as them. Starmer is a similar blank canvas but his problem is that people think he is a secret Trot/Tory0 -
This is true, his superpower was for everyone to know that he was lying to somebody, but to assume it wasn't them.surrey_commuter said:
surely with our bizarre political system the importance is in trying to deduce what somebody truly believes in so that if they do get into a positionof power you know what you will be getting.rick_chasey said:This is actually a decent example of virtue signalling. He was compelled to signal something he didn't actually believe in, because the signal was more important than the outcome (his voting record).
Have often wondered why the "virtue signal" complainers didn't pick up on this particular story, as it's an actual rare real-life example.
Presumably because the nuance around his beliefs re-homosexuals would be lost.
This was the genius of Boris in that nobody knew what he truly believed in but were prepared to believe that it was the same as them. Starmer is a similar blank canvas but his problem is that people think he is a secret Trot/Tory0 -
Must say that with Starmer I picture John Major with a red rosette.surrey_commuter said:
...rick_chasey said:This is actually a decent example of virtue signalling. He was compelled to signal something he didn't actually believe in, because the signal was more important than the outcome (his voting record).
Have often wondered why the "virtue signal" complainers didn't pick up on this particular story, as it's an actual rare real-life example.
Presumably because the nuance around his beliefs re-homosexuals would be lost.
This was the genius of Boris in that nobody knew what he truly believed in but were prepared to believe that it was the same as them. Starmer is a similar blank canvas but his problem is that people think he is a secret Trot/Tory
Simply bland.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I think you have misunderstood my point, it is not the hypocrisy that matters, it is whether he has caused offence at the outset. Voting to allow something doesn't make him a hypocrite as you point out, but it doesn't make his view less offensive (if they were).rjsterry said:
That seems quite a different scenario to what actually happened. From memory, there was an assumption that he must be homophobic because of his religious beliefs and then an inane effort by some to try get him to say it aloud so that they could label him a hypocrite.TheBigBean said:
I don't like coffee, but I'm willing to allow others to drink it. It's pretty charitable of me really, but the position is unlikely to confuse people.rjsterry said:
He's not in favour of gay marriage, he's in favour of other people having the right to do so.Jezyboy said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think it's interesting that someone can simultaneously believe all homosexuals are condemned to hell, and be in favour of gay marriage. But I don't think it's particularly outrageous to think that the state shouldn't be playing the role of policing all sins.rick_chasey said:
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?
Where it is harder is when someone states a position that crosses a moral line for many (e.g. being racist). It's then not enough to simply vote for equality measures on the basis of liberalism, because people are still offended by the original comments.
He wasn't actively campaigning for discrimination, let alone voting for it. Arguing for the rights of others to do things you disapprove of is a pretty fundamental principle of liberalism so I really don't see a conflict between his personal beliefs and actions.0 -
Why is his view offensive? And who cares what his views are - it's his actions that are important.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood my point, it is not the hypocrisy that matters, it is whether he has caused offence at the outset. Voting to allow something doesn't make him a hypocrite as you point out, but it doesn't make his view less offensive (if they were).rjsterry said:
That seems quite a different scenario to what actually happened. From memory, there was an assumption that he must be homophobic because of his religious beliefs and then an inane effort by some to try get him to say it aloud so that they could label him a hypocrite.TheBigBean said:
I don't like coffee, but I'm willing to allow others to drink it. It's pretty charitable of me really, but the position is unlikely to confuse people.rjsterry said:
He's not in favour of gay marriage, he's in favour of other people having the right to do so.Jezyboy said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think it's interesting that someone can simultaneously believe all homosexuals are condemned to hell, and be in favour of gay marriage. But I don't think it's particularly outrageous to think that the state shouldn't be playing the role of policing all sins.rick_chasey said:
You can have your own views and believe liberalism trumps that?Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
Its not an enormous mental leap to recognise people think differently to you and being ok with that?
Where it is harder is when someone states a position that crosses a moral line for many (e.g. being racist). It's then not enough to simply vote for equality measures on the basis of liberalism, because people are still offended by the original comments.
He wasn't actively campaigning for discrimination, let alone voting for it. Arguing for the rights of others to do things you disapprove of is a pretty fundamental principle of liberalism so I really don't see a conflict between his personal beliefs and actions.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
All gifts at any time subject to a de minimis would be taxable. It would definitely raise tax which could be used to level up, but the main goal would be to level down beneficiaries of the wealthy not the wealthy themselves.surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued what your style of inheritance tax would look like and how much you would look to raise. Are you looking to raise revenue or level down the wealthy?TheBigBean said:
Well, if you take Starmer, for example, what are they? He has changed stated opinions every time it has been necessary, so we will only find out what they really are when he is in power, but even then his opinions will only be those that keep him in power for as long as possible.Jezyboy said:
What's the point in entering politics if you don't at least try and implement at least some of your beliefs though?TheBigBean said:
I think you are overthinking this. I believe inheritance tax should be massively increased. If I wanted to be elected, I'd need to say the complete opposite. That's politics and is why no one trusts politicians.rick_chasey said:
Right, but he was pressured to lie about his own beliefs. That doesn't feel especially liberal.kingstongraham said:If he thinks it's a sin but also none of the state's business, that's fine. Probably thinks lots of other things are sins like coveting his neighbours ox.
FWIW, I'm not a massive Farron fan but I think the issue this raises is really critical to the modern liberal/left movement, and one that is pretty much ignored as irrelevant or at worst, traitorous.
Now if you're in favour of heavier inheritance tax, because of an overall belief of "x" and you're happy to swap raising inheritance tax for other policies that help achieve the belief of "x" then that's totally fair enough.
If you're just going to go into politics but not try and pursue any policies that align with your core beliefs...well then what's the point?
I think he will rationalise this as him/labour being in power is far better than the Tories/Corbynites and thus the country is a better place.
In my case, my overall belief ("x") would be that everyone should be born with equal opportunity. One way of achieving this would be through greater inheritance tax, but it's an unelectable position, so I would need to campaign on the basis of improved education. Then when in power, I'd need to find a way to pay for it. I'd consider greater inheritance tax, then I'd realise I would lose the next election, so instead I would borrow more and promise growth.
I would have thought a broad based, low rate with no exemptions could be sold to the masses.0 -
I'd be inclined to up the rate on residential property.
It is crazy that a couple whose sole asset is a property worth £1.0 million would pay no IHT, yet the couple whose sole asset is investments worth £1.0 million pay £140,000 in IHT.
1 -
When you're alive, sale of your main residence is tax free. Not sure why that treatment should change because you're dead.Dorset_Boy said:I'd be inclined to up the rate on residential property.
It is crazy that a couple whose sole asset is a property worth £1.0 million would pay no IHT, yet the couple whose sole asset is investments worth £1.0 million pay £140,000 in IHT."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Is that true? I know there is an additional nil rate band, but the £1m property would still fall above that threshold. If it was £600k and was owned by a couple, it would be nothing to pay, I think.Dorset_Boy said:I'd be inclined to up the rate on residential property.
It is crazy that a couple whose sole asset is a property worth £1.0 million would pay no IHT, yet the couple whose sole asset is investments worth £1.0 million pay £140,000 in IHT.
I'd remove the additional nil rate band for residential properties entirely. It's crazy.0 -
If the property is left to children or grandchildren the Residence Nil Rate Band applies in addition to the normal Nil Rate Band.kingstongraham said:
Is that true? I know there is an additional nil rate band, but the £1m property would still fall above that threshold. If it was £600k and was owned by a couple, it would be nothing to pay, I think.Dorset_Boy said:I'd be inclined to up the rate on residential property.
It is crazy that a couple whose sole asset is a property worth £1.0 million would pay no IHT, yet the couple whose sole asset is investments worth £1.0 million pay £140,000 in IHT.
I'd remove the additional nil rate band for residential properties entirely. It's crazy.
So £325,000 (NRB) + £175,000 (RNRB) = £500,000 x 2 = £1,000,000
Grossly unfair on those who are willing to invest in the economy, rather than sit in a (neatly arranged) pile of bricks.
1 -
It was a Cameron/Osbourne thing and resulted in IDS resigning from government.kingstongraham said:
Is that true? I know there is an additional nil rate band, but the £1m property would still fall above that threshold. If it was £600k and was owned by a couple, it would be nothing to pay, I think.Dorset_Boy said:I'd be inclined to up the rate on residential property.
It is crazy that a couple whose sole asset is a property worth £1.0 million would pay no IHT, yet the couple whose sole asset is investments worth £1.0 million pay £140,000 in IHT.
I'd remove the additional nil rate band for residential properties entirely. It's crazy.0 -
Brought in so they could fulfill a promise that no one would pay any IHT on the first £1.0 million of the estate.TheBigBean said:
It was a Cameron/Osbourne thing and resulted in IDS resigning from government.kingstongraham said:
Is that true? I know there is an additional nil rate band, but the £1m property would still fall above that threshold. If it was £600k and was owned by a couple, it would be nothing to pay, I think.Dorset_Boy said:I'd be inclined to up the rate on residential property.
It is crazy that a couple whose sole asset is a property worth £1.0 million would pay no IHT, yet the couple whose sole asset is investments worth £1.0 million pay £140,000 in IHT.
I'd remove the additional nil rate band for residential properties entirely. It's crazy.0 -
If you sold it, kept the cash and then died, your estate would pay tax on the cash above £700k. If you kept the house, you'd get £1m.Stevo_666 said:
When you're alive, sale of your main residence is tax free. Not sure why that treatment should change because you're dead.Dorset_Boy said:I'd be inclined to up the rate on residential property.
It is crazy that a couple whose sole asset is a property worth £1.0 million would pay no IHT, yet the couple whose sole asset is investments worth £1.0 million pay £140,000 in IHT.1
