pap

Actually, Oscar Wilde wrote half that quip. It's important to be earnest.

Let's start with the jealousy bit first, shall we? Looks fun. I suppose jealousy is wanting to have what other people have, and I'll admit that there is an element to that, but almost certainly not in the way you think. I'm honestly not interested in most of the so-called trappings of success. It's a consumerist illusion, predicated on the false premise that the possession of material wealth is the gateway to happiness. So in terms of private jets and suchlike, I'm not jealous. I genuinely don't aspire to that lifestyle, so in that sense, I don't want what they have. That said, it does f**king irk me that most of us spend our whole lives fighting to get a piece of this world while others have the lot handed to them on based on past glories, and it bothers me that we put these people's rights ahead of so many others to our collective detriment. So yep, I'll admit to a count of jealousy there. Let's handle "why not?". How about a lack of mobility in planning and infrastructure projects? Or an artificially inflated housing market, based on a lack of supply and the myth that Britain is concreted over and has no space. 77% of the population live on just 5.8% of the land. Two thirds of it is owned by tiny fraction of the country's population. In 2001, roughly 8% of the country was classed as urban. We have thousands of people living in overcrowded accommodation, waiting for a house or being put up in crappy emergency B+Bs at the expense of the social security system, and we've got all this land going begging. No land tax, plus we PAY wealthy landowners to pretend not to farm. That, my friend - is why not. As for Tony Blair, of course I'm not happy. You're making the mistake of believing someone on the left wing is going to naturally venerate the leaders of the Labour Party. Not the case - I don't think it's too far a stretch to label him a war criminal. He should be pulled up before the Hague for the lies on Iraq, not raking millions from high-paying non-jobs and after dinner speeches.

I'll be honest and say that I'd take it. I would only actually get £430,000. Look out, everybody - pap's in the elite! Truth is that'd get me a much better house and would put the kids through Uni. Hardly going to take over the world with it. The footprint of a decent manor. Now if you asked me the same question and the figure was much higher, the answer would be different. Let's go for a billion. I can honestly say I'd give the vast majority away. I'd keep a few mil to see me through the rest of life, but the rest would be given away. Who needs a billion pounds to live?

Like all those threads you start about Islamic extremists? Feck me. Pot. Kettle. Black. At least I'm p*ssed off at a different thing each time.

So are you happy with the idea that certain individuals own huge parts of the country on the basis of their DNA?

No, I'd like you to look at Denmark, and then tells me who owns Britain's countryside. You called buctootim out on it, so I'm presuming you must know.

Again, the projection of ignorance! Just because you can't see a reason for something, it must not exist! Let me turn this back on you. Why do you even bother reading anything in The Lounge?

To be ignorant is unfortunate. To project your own ignorance as how everyone else must feel is simply careless.

All governments differ from one another. I didn't have a great deal of time for the Labour government either, but that it mostly on account of the Iraq war.

Land looms large because it's probably the most tangible example of the unfairness of inheritance, and you can pull nice examples like the Duke Of Westminster out to illustrate it. But you're right - much of the debate has focused on ownership, and rightly so. Inheritance is after all, the transfer of ownership from one person to another. I have to say, I have an open mind on how you'd go about solving the problem. Land tax would be a great start, and would perhaps encourage those that have huge estates to cut their cloth accordingly. Fundamentally though, I don't see why someone gets access to disproportionate wealth on the basis of family connections, particularly when the side-effects have wider damaging implications on society. Call it Marxist fluff if you like ( and I kind of think you're insulting me ) but I haven't seen a single argument on here supporting the excesses of inheritance that have been enumerated. There's probably a good reason for that, namely that the principle is indefensible.

Personally, I believe that NewsCorp and the Conservatives have conspired from the start to allow the BSkyB takeover. The two parties ( see posted timeline ) have been in suspiciously close orbit since 2006, and other factors, such as Cameron's employment of Coulson and closeness to Brooks also look extremely dodgy in hindsight. As I keep saying, it's a bandit government out to get as much as it can before it is tried and prosecuted at the next election.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how ownership of the countryside has evolved, given your clear expertise. Who owns Britain's countryside, Sergei?

So my argument is null and void because you mention a dictator? Sterling stuff as always, Sergei. Why not look at Denmark instead? They were one of the first nations to truly tackle the issue of land reform, and is perhaps a better example to look at than Zimbabwe. We've had more time to observe the effects, the country is culturally similar to our own and oh, the country isn't run by a complete nutjob. These things help.

First, you have more supply of land. Second, the government could sell the land to businesses / home builders / private individuals, raising funds and meaning that we get to share less of the burden. More supply normally equates to cheaper cost, meaning that more people will be able to get onto and stay on the property ladder. Who knows? Maybe the cost of living will go down too, making the UK more competitive. Next, you get tax money. There is no land tax at the moment, so from an Inland Revenue perspective, that land doesn't generate any revenue. Put a house on the land, and you'll get council tax. Put a business there, and you get jobs, corporation tax, PAYE and all the rest. So, cheaper cost of living, more land/housing available, upfront cash for any redistributed land along with more revenue potential later on. There are tons of benefits to land redistribution. Let's not pretend otherwise, eh?

Perhaps sir would appreciate a piece from a more left-leaning organ. This is a nice timeline of the BSkyB buyout process. However, it is nice to see another great forum staple. Carlsberg don't do free advertising. trousers does it for them

Succinct. Regarding the distribution of land. Small groups of people inheriting vast tracts of land is ultimately counterproductive. First, most of that land is off the table for good. That results in artificial demand, pushing prices up on the stuff that is up for sale. The Land Registry can still only account for the ownership of 50% of the land in this country, as a lot of people who have owned land for a very long time obscure their true holdings. I agree with you though. Seems mental that we're washing people out of London because of high housing costs when you've got the likes of the Duke of Westminster owning 100 acres in Mayfair ( valued at 3.35 billion 10 years ago ). I very much doubt he's a self-made man

I've heard it all before Orange, me old fruit. If you want to conflate a lack of nationalist fervour with self-loathing, go for it - but you'll have to forgive me for not taking up your cause. I rather like being English, but it's not really an achievement, is it?

Simon Cowell's genius was to recognise that the stupid outnumber the discerning. I am still living with the unexpected elevation of One Direction to the music world. My twelve year old thinks that they are amazing, and she's not alone. They've broken America, ffs. As for the talent shows? Almost entirely without merit, and feeds into this "something-for-nothing" era of wish-fulfilment. The baying crowds on the likes of X-Factor and BGT could just as easily be cheering on lions having a chow-down on Christians.

I don't understand why every challenge to the present system is seen as the heralding of a new Marxist state. It is possible to challenge concepts like inheritance without Stalinist purges. I also think you're a little naive to believe that economic slavery is unique to those sort of societies. How many people can genuinely say "yeah, I'm going to give up the work" and still be paying their bills 12 months on? Oddly enough, many of those who could say that have inherited wealth to sustain them. All you say would be fair enough, if the act of making money was purely down to the individual and that those money-making efforts had no other effects on society. We don't live in a vacuum though, so I think its fair to say that the set-up (for want of a better term) of society has a lot to do with the wealth that someone creates, and that wealth creation can a lot of nasty side-effects, particularly when collective wealth is sacrificed for the benefit of personal wealth. Take the relatively recent Cadbury's sale as an example. The UK lost jobs while a few individuals got very rich off the Kraft money. Would you say that the money senior Cadbury's execs made off that sale was well-earned? That they should take the money made from the back of redundancies and just be able to give the lot to their families?

It's currently 40% of anything over £325,000 - but there are exemptions. No tax is payable when a gift passes between husband and wife, so they don't double dip. It was actually designed to hit the super-rich, but the thresholds haven't really gone up with earnings, successive Governments have rather liked that. Something originally designed to get something out of the tycoons that make their fortunes now hit anyone with a decent house and cash in the bank. A much higher threshold with more enforcement seems sensible, but the super-rich often officially quit the country anyway, transferring their assets to a more favourable tax regime. Planned well, and we get nothing

I nominate this thread go into the Golden Threads section purely on the basis of Alp's articulate and well-considered retort. The muses of myth must surely be residing in Austria at the moment providing Alpine with these poignant literary insights.

The defining characteristic of being English is not giving a crap that you're English, and not giving a crap about what anyone else thinks of you. Nationalism isn't a big part of being English. That's why we don't brainwash our kids into loving the state like the French or the Yanks do. Happy St Georges Day to all those that believe that a tall tale of dragon-slaying best represents us as a people.

Leicester are a good side. Shame there's nothing but pride to play for tonight, but on a normal day, they are not easy to beat, especially at KP. Just look at our game up there. Done up because we had our eye off the ball. If West Ham fall victim to any similar lapses, could be game over very quickly. Probably be fitting that someone else's result gets us promoted, too. Seem to have sh*t our pants every time we've had the chance to decide for ourselves.

Tell you what, mate. Let's pretend that this post never happened. It's not really germane to the argument - really a mish-mash of wilful ignorance and personal attacks. I don't think you've made one post on the subject of inheritance. Go look it up, and if you fancy discussing it, come back and have another go.

The lottery is fair in the sense that it doesn't discriminate along any other lines other than whether you have the correct numbers. You don't have to have had a dad who had won the lottery, for example. How exactly is this related to inheritance, me ol' mucker? Lottery money is a prize that anyone can win, not something that can only pass to genetic relatives.