Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

tomandlu

Members
  • Posts

    6,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tomandlu

  1. Our house hasn't moved, and is still worth exactly what we paid for it 3 months ago - it's worth a house. That said, I think we can trade it in for more baked beans than before.
  2. I'll go with Riedquat on this - avoid extremes. I count myself as both a capitalist and a socialist - it's just a question of recognising which solution is better for a particular problem. Broadly speaking, infrastructure and essential services are better managed by the state. These are required resources, or resources that cannot be truly competitive (roads, rail, water, power, schools, health). Where genuine competition can exist, I favour the free-market. The bottom line is that any 'ideal' system is inherently flawed by its own dogmatism, if for no other reason than that such dogmatism assumes perfection, and therefore cannot countenance change or debate. As an aside, currently, it seems to be the free-marketeers that ere on the side of absurdity - how much more state money must be thrown to the 'free market' running privatised services to make them successful capitalist enterprises?
  3. Aka "quick, we've been rumbled - get out in front, make an 'unforced' confession, and dump as much as we can on the previous administration."
  4. Hard to know until the tell-all books come out, but Trump seems to have had the attention span of a concussed goldfish, and the whole organisation seemed dysfunctional.
  5. Heh - as the article points out, Trump's accusation that the virus escaped from the lab at Wuhan was what led many journalists to dismiss the notion - just one more emission from the ******** factory. That said, it might have been a bit more plausible if he'd mentioned that he knew this because the US had funded the work in the first place.
  6. Indeed. I will confess that, until I read that article, I assumed that virologists who said it was natural were doing there job - i.e. 'science' - but their dishonesty, even if it proves nothing else, puts that to bed.
  7. If the article is correct in its deductions, then it's closer to collusion than propaganda.
  8. Worth a read: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan Bottom line - almost certainly from the lab at Wuhan. Somewhat ironically, this would have been during research paid for by the US to develop novel viruses in order to create new vaccines (in other words, these viruses were being developed as targets, not weapons).
  9. That was my thought. However, the added wrinkle is her preference is to give my wife the house.
  10. Hi, My wife and I, and our two children, currently rent. My mother-in-law is becoming increasingly frail, so is selling her house, and the money will be used to buy a house suitable for all of us. The question is how best to prepare for what happens when she dies, which will hopefully not be for some time. The options are: She buys the house She buys the house and gifts it to my wife She gifts the money from the sale of her house to my wife, who then purchases the new house AFAICT, the first is straightforward, and the combined inheritance allowance of my mother-in-law and her deceased husband should cover the IHT. The second is problematic unless my mother-in-law pays the market rent. The third I'm not sure about, since it looks like number 2 with a bit of sleight of the hand. (2 and 3 also assume that she lives for at least 7 years after making the gift) Anyone got any experience of this? What sort of advice service do I consult to get a clear answer? Solicitors don't seem to cover this.
  11. From excon's POV, it's presumably not rape if the victim is a remainer.
  12. Do you think the executive should be able to close down parliament or not?
  13. Is that the best the Express can come up with? You really don't get it, do you? Any other matter, and you would (I hope) be up in arms about what BJ tried to do. Get your head out of your one-track posterior - you sound like a republican defending Trump. All 11 supported the judgement - are you honestly claiming that they all ignored their duty to undermine Brexit?
  14. Blimey. Thought I'd take a break on another topic, and blundered into a climate change one. What is it with the right? I thought they were meant to be the pragmatic ones?
  15. Delusional. Seriously. You're just making stuff up. Like I said, you ultra-leavers are a hoot today. BJ effectively tried to rule without oversight - is that something you support as a general principle, or just in this one case, for some reason?
  16. Upholding the law = subverting the democratic will of the people? (or should that be the triumph of the will?) FWIW I don't have any time either for parliamentarians who are trying to ignore the result, but the notion that we should turn a blind eye to breaking the rule of law is absurd. You, and those who hold such views, are dangerous idiots.
  17. Oh, ffs, please don't make a fool of yourself. Read the effing judgement; it goes into all of this.
  18. You're talking nonsense. They never went near Brexit; they didn't have to. A crime is a crime, irrespective of motive. Motive is what you use to build a case.
  19. TBH I assumed it was a spoof/troll when I first saw the twitter post. Head straight for that iceberg!* * actually, the Titanic would have been considerably better off if it had done just that.
  20. Also claiming (still? why?) that prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit. They're certainly cocky, but I suspect it's a bluff.
  21. You assume that everyone who voted leave is a fanatic who would only be happy with the hard option, and that every remainer favours ignoring the ref.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.