The answer to the question "How are Labour going to fund the reintroduction of the 50% tax rate?" is "The reintroduction of 10% tax on those who don't currently pay it"
You'd barely know it, the Lib Dems should have been crowing this from the rooftops as it was their idea but they have been really silent. The fact that they are stumbling so badly in the opinion polls despite the fact they have made your average basic rate working tax payer better off is telling. It looks like it will be a case of thanks - but here's the door at next GE.
Really? It's been repeated millions of times.
I struggle to think of anything which has been stated more often by Con / LD politicians.
Of course that doesn't mean the public knows - because most people don't listen to anything which politicians say.
I haven't noticed it ! Anyway I suspect the Lib Dems will save it for the GE campaign. Also I wonder if the coalition might be tempted to go for a Hail Mary of £15000 PA in the next budget. Would be very popular, and Labour will pretty much HAVE to cut it to balance the books should they get in.
Well if Lab goes for rent controls there will be real problems for anyone looking for somewhere to rent.
No sane person is going to allow the Government to confiscate their property.
And that is what rent controls amount to - you are stuck with someone in your property who you can never ever get out and the Council telling you what you can charge them.
Most people will not remember the 1970s and will have no idea what is coming.
Creates opportunities for people with capital and a long term view though.
Hollande splitting from his misses is not good news on the same day Labour announce this policy at any rate. I head to the BBC website and see Labour, Tax increase, Hollande. The Conservatives should hammer the link home in people's minds.
The Tories should use this as an opportunity to abolish the 45% band at the next budget, returning to two rates 20% and 40% and restoring a full personal allowance to everyone. At the same time a further big increase in the personal allowance should be implemented taking it to say £10500. Might as well be hung for a lamb etc
Of course the class warriors will love it and it's easy to think that only a tiny number of people earn over £150k.
However it affects anyone who aspires to earn over £150k - there will be many more people in say the first half of their career who currently earn much less but will be aiming to reach the top in due course.
Most of the above people won't get there but that's not the point - if people are aiming to get there and think they might then the 50p rate will still put them off.
The Tories should use this as an opportunity to abolish the 45% band at the next budget, returning to two rates 20% and 40% and restoring a full personal allowance to everyone. At the same time a further big increase in the personal allowance should be implemented taking it to say £10500. Might as well be hung for a lamb etc
It's a no brainer that it will go to £10,500 in April 2015. Clegg has already called for it and Cameron will be happy to do it in return for the LDs agreeing to something else that he wants.
We already know it will go to £10,000 in April 2014 so another £500 the following year isn't that much of a deal.
Rent controls would be an absolute nightmare. The corruption and stagnation would be suffocating. Subletting would be rife and illegal tenants would hardly be 'neighbourly' given that they have to keep a low profile. Landlords would have no reason to maintain their properties, since they are not competing for the best tenants, and gentrified areas would revert to slums.
On this theme, I was amazed to see today that Croydon council are offering an amnesty to council tenants who are sub-letting council property, and that it's only been a criminal offense in October 2013. The whole system for allocating council housing is already massively unfair, and anyone who gets one in London becomes a de facto millionaire all because of an administrative decision by the State. People who abuse it should be properly punished.
'It's a no brainer that it will go to £10,500 in April 2015. Clegg has already called for it and Cameron will be happy to do it in return for the LDs agreeing to something else that he wants.'
No doubt a cut in the basic rate of income tax will go down well with hard working families & help with the cost of living..
One other thing about these Labour announcements is they may help Con get votes back from UKIP.
It's all very well saying all politicians are the same but if, for example, you are a buy to let landlord - and I'm not talking about some multi-millionaire, maybe you just have one property let out - then you are going to have to think very, very carefully indeed.
Because if a Labour Government reintroduces rent controls and security of tenure then you lose your property.
One other thing about these Labour announcements is they may help Con get votes back from UKIP.
It's all very well saying all politicians are the same but if, for example, you are a buy to let landlord - and I'm not talking about some multi-millionaire, maybe you just have one property let out - then you are going to have to think very, very carefully indeed.
Because if a Labour Government reintroduces rent controls and security of tenure then you lose your property.
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
Dunblane would have been over in seconds if people were armed.
It is the unarmed status of the population that allow crimes to continue past the first minute.
So to get it straight: you expected the kids in the school to be armed, and/or the teachers?
And pray tell, how many kids would accidentally got shot each year? How many more guns would be in circulation?
I normally like what you write, and I'm not exactly fond of some of the gun legislation, but the idea that arming everyone would stop armed incidents is hilarious.
Armed police make enough mistakes here in the UK. And you want untrained people to bear arms and guns in schools?
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
Unfortunately the evidence is against you. Yesterday I posted links to studies by both the Harvard Law School and the US National Academy of Sciences that showed that countries with controlled gun access have lower murder rates than those with bans. Even in the US homicide rates have been dropping in spite of a huge increase in gun ownership. That is not to say the US doesn't need to toughen its laws (proper ID, mental health and criminal checks, licencing, cool off periods and no instant purchase are all sensible, indeed necessary, controls.) just that outright bans are not the answer
The bigger danger I think is that Landlords will write out contracts excluding/not perform maintenance on the properties if the market rental value is higher than the cap.
Rent control is a disastrous policy. The only scenario where it isn't really damaging is when you get a situation where supply and demand are stable, i.e. where you don't need them in the first place. A few testimonials from the lucky few that win big out of rent controls doesn't mitigate the huge numbers that lose out.
In terms of property regulation in the UK, the big untapped reform is what to do with council housing. It's frankly ridiculous that people get to live at below market rents, subsidized by the taxpayer, just because they once long ago fulfilled the criteria. It's even worse when it was inherited from their parents. Meanwhile truly needy people get put in B&Bs. If the government really doesn't have the balls to make these people find non-taxpayer provided property, the least it could do is charge them market rents.
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
That's not true, though, is it? There are clearly benefits in people being able to protect themselves from muggings and burglaries. In addition a lot of people could enjoy shooting as a hobby. I actually agree that the risks outweigh the benefits, but a lot of people jump to unthought out conclusions on this issue.
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
Dunblane would have been over in seconds if people were armed.
It is the unarmed status of the population that allow crimes to continue past the first minute.
So to get it straight: you expected the kids in the school to be armed, and/or the teachers?
And pray tell, how many kids would accidentally got shot each year? How many more guns would be in circulation?
I normally like what you write, and I'm not exactly fond of some of the gun legislation, but the idea that arming everyone would stop armed incidents is hilarious.
Armed police make enough mistakes here in the UK. And you want untrained people to bear arms and guns in schools?
On that I do agree with you. Guns have no place anywhere near school just as knives don't.
The bigger danger I think is that Landlords will write out contracts excluding/not perform maintenance on the properties if the market rental value is higher than the cap.
Some people will have better memories than me but I suspect that was banned when we had rent controls before - landlord will be under legal obligation to maintain property to proper standard.
Dunblane would have been over in seconds if people were armed.
It is the unarmed status of the population that allow crimes to continue past the first minute.
You really advocating giving kids guns?
(BTW, the reason why the right to bear arms is exactly the same as why we resile from arming the police - the fear of an over-mighty state. Neither country is going to be convinced of the merits of the other's position)
I must admit that I am of an age where I know nothing about rent controls. They were before my time.
Having read Wiki, I'm still not any clearer as it seems there have been lots of different systems over time. Can anyone give a quick precis about what this would mean for a) tenants and b) landlords?
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
Dunblane would have been over in seconds if people were armed.
It is the unarmed status of the population that allow crimes to continue past the first minute.
So to get it straight: you expected the kids in the school to be armed, and/or the teachers?
And pray tell, how many kids would accidentally got shot each year? How many more guns would be in circulation?
I normally like what you write, and I'm not exactly fond of some of the gun legislation, but the idea that arming everyone would stop armed incidents is hilarious.
Armed police make enough mistakes here in the UK. And you want untrained people to bear arms and guns in schools?
That's an interesting point when you consider the US.
Most major gun incidents as reported tend to occur in schools, universities, shopping centres, theatres, restaurants etc. Those are all places were guns are not allowed.
So by declaring a "no gun zone" you effectively create an area where only criminals carry guns.
That's much the same as the whole of the UK right now. Enabling law abiding citizens who have gone on courses to earn their licence (nobody in Switzerland is "untrained" in gun handling and safety) to carry merely levels the playing field ... especially in the inner cities.
One group of lobbyists who'll be particularly anti gun will be manufacturers of pepper sprays sold (illegally, I think?) for ladies handbags. Nothing says No to a rapist quite like a Glock 19.
Seems to be barmy night here on pb.com . Rachman finding supporters 40 odd years on and people arguing all and sundry should be walking our streets armed with guns .
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
Dunblane would have been over in seconds if people were armed.
It is the unarmed status of the population that allow crimes to continue past the first minute.
So to get it straight: you expected the kids in the school to be armed, and/or the teachers?
And pray tell, how many kids would accidentally got shot each year? How many more guns would be in circulation?
I normally like what you write, and I'm not exactly fond of some of the gun legislation, but the idea that arming everyone would stop armed incidents is hilarious.
Armed police make enough mistakes here in the UK. And you want untrained people to bear arms and guns in schools?
On that I do agree with you. Guns have no place anywhere near school just as knives don't.
My school had an armoury, and I learnt to shoot on the range - mainly .22
As I spent much of my time there with my leg in a cast, it was the only sport I could do. ;-)
I must admit that I am of an age where I know nothing about rent controls. They were before my time.
Having read Wiki, I'm still not any clearer as it seems there have been lots of different systems over time. Can anyone give a quick precis about what this would mean for a) tenants and b) landlords?
As an aside, there are all sorts of problems that can arise from rent controls.
For instance, in my block of flats the former head of the management company lived in a rent control flat but didn't have much money - she had retired in the 70s on a fixed pension. So she skimped on maintenance spending to keep the service charge down, and there was no way to vote her off the board (directors were appointed by the board, not elected). The result was that when she sadly passed on there was a massive backlog of expenditure - it has worked out at about £1m over 10 years - to get the block back up to standard.
But I would love rent controls. You'd just buy controlled property at a sensible yield (ie lower price) and wait until some future government abolished rent controls. It's exactly the same model as buying properties with sitting tenants now, but there would likely be many more opportunities.
I think rent controls would benefit tenants and those with alot of capital. Someone letting out a single property in the South East might not be too chuffed. But I'm not sure they're voting Labour in the first place.
Seems to be barmy night here on pb.com . Rachman finding supporters 40 odd years on and people arguing all and sundry should be walking our streets armed with guns .
Not supporting Rachman at all.
If you personally had say £150k to invest would you buy a property and then let it to someone who you could never ever get out and on the basis that the Council will determine your rent (and you have a legal obligation to maintain the property)?
Of course not.
Availability of property to rent will collapse. In the 70s it didn't matter too much as there was lots of Council housing. What will happen now? It's not going to be pretty.
The only positive side effect will be that it will be far easier to buy.
Seems to be barmy night here on pb.com . Rachman finding supporters 40 odd years on and people arguing all and sundry should be walking our streets armed with guns .
Not supporting Rachman at all.
If you personally had say £150k to invest would you buy a property and then let it to someone who you could never ever get out and on the basis that the Council will determine your rent (and you have a legal obligation to maintain the property)?
Of course not.
Availability of property to rent will collapse. In the 70s it didn't matter too much as there was lots of Council housing. What will happen now? It's not going to be pretty.
The only positive side effect will be that it will be far easier to buy.
(cue Daily Mail mode): but what will happen to house prices? Will they drop as buy-to-let owners (presumably) fall out of the market, or increase as a lack of rentable properties means there is more demand to buy?
Anything that reduces house prices will not go down well with the public. Especially as they are not tackling the real problems in the housing market, one of which is second homes.
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
Dunblane would have been over in seconds if people were armed.
It is the unarmed status of the population that allow crimes to continue past the first minute.
So to get it straight: you expected the kids in the school to be armed, and/or the teachers?
And pray tell, how many kids would accidentally got shot each year? How many more guns would be in circulation?
I normally like what you write, and I'm not exactly fond of some of the gun legislation, but the idea that arming everyone would stop armed incidents is hilarious.
Armed police make enough mistakes here in the UK. And you want untrained people to bear arms and guns in schools?
That's an interesting point when you consider the US.
Most major gun incidents as reported tend to occur in schools, universities, shopping centres, theatres, restaurants etc. Those are all places were guns are not allowed.
So by declaring a "no gun zone" you effectively create an area where only criminals carry guns.
That's much the same as the whole of the UK right now. Enabling law abiding citizens who have gone on courses to earn their licence (nobody in Switzerland is "untrained" in gun handling and safety) to carry merely levels the playing field ... especially in the inner cities.
One group of lobbyists who'll be particularly anti gun will be manufacturers of pepper sprays sold (illegally, I think?) for ladies handbags. Nothing says No to a rapist quite like a Glock 19.
You seem unable to understand the difference between correlation and causation. The reason these places got marked as "gun free zones" is because these shootings started happening. This meant that people can raise the alarm as soon as a gun is sighted, rather than when the guy starts shooting.
I think I owe you a clarification on my last reply.
I live in different circumstances to you which influences my view on this. The costas in Spain have attracted a large Russian and eastern european contingent. In some of the bars I go to it's not unusual to see (illegally) armed bodyguards. The police are routinely armed on patrol and on border duty. I see guns every day when I cross the border - in the hands of agents of the government and of the close protection teams of wealthy people. Getting mugged in Spain is just as likely to involve a gun as a knife, and gun crime is deliberately under-reported so as not to scare away the tourists.
Equally, only this evening I was looking on SilkRoad2 and there I can buy guns and passports. This is a world that the UK has closed its eyes to and tried to close its borders to.
That's why I see the need for an armed civilian populace.
And rather like you, I had gun training whilst at school. I continued it into my first job though. The only difference is that the guns stopped being hand-held
The week's news from Sale East: the Conservatives are first off the mark in delivering leaflets of any sort; UKIP are the most visible presence on Sale High Street (today two rather dejected-looking individuals stood in the bitter rain on Sale High Street in high-vis 'UKIP Scotland' tabards - was it a flying picket of some sort I wonder? Or are UKIP Scotland the branch with the most weatherproof clothing?) Still no word from Labour or the Lib Dems; the former can certainly be excused on the grounds that they have only just buried the previous incumbent.
Seems to be barmy night here on pb.com . Rachman finding supporters 40 odd years on and people arguing all and sundry should be walking our streets armed with guns .
Not for "all and sundry". There'd be a test for senility, for example, which would rule you out.
Handguns are also a sensible household defence against a Zombie apocalypse, the British approach with cricket bats is no way as effective as small arms. Shaun of the Dead vs Dawn of the Dead? No contest.
Another mass shooting currently taking place in the NE USA. 3 dead so far according to Sky News
And Mr Farage wants it to be easier for us to have guns
Yep. Sensible man. Looks at the evidence rather than knee jerk reactions.
It's risks versus benefits.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
Unfortunately the evidence is against you. Yesterday I posted links to studies by both the Harvard Law School and the US National Academy of Sciences that showed that countries with controlled gun access have lower murder rates than those with bans. Even in the US homicide rates have been dropping in spite of a huge increase in gun ownership. That is not to say the US doesn't need to toughen its laws (proper ID, mental health and criminal checks, licencing, cool off periods and no instant purchase are all sensible, indeed necessary, controls.) just that outright bans are not the answer
I think rent controls would benefit tenants and those with alot of capital. Someone letting out a single property in the South East might not be too chuffed. But I'm not sure they're voting Labour in the first place.
You silly, silly man.
You've given Mr.Jones the perfect excuse to start rambling...
Mr. Foxinsox, you'd be better off with chainmail and a few medieval melee weapons. In a zombie apocalypse you'd soon run out of bullets, but a good old-fashioned poleaxe will keep working for ages.
The week's news from Sale East: the Conservatives are first off the mark in delivering leaflets of any sort; UKIP are the most visible presence on Sale High Street (today two rather dejected-looking individuals stood in the bitter rain on Sale High Street in high-vis 'UKIP Scotland' tabards - was it a flying picket of some sort I wonder? Or are UKIP Scotland the branch with the most weatherproof clothing?) Still no word from Labour or the Lib Dems; the former can certainly be excused on the grounds that they have only just buried the previous incumbent.
The latter on the grounds they're still busy burying their North West hopes?
Mr. Foxinsox, you'd be better off with chainmail and a few medieval melee weapons. In a zombie apocalypse you'd soon run out of bullets, but a good old-fashioned poleaxe will keep working for ages.
On the question of private sector rents,it is wrong to deny there is a problem illustrated by the man who found it cheaper to commute to London from Barcelona rather than reside there.
It's worth noting that rent controls do actually operate all over the country, including the capital. Thanks to the Rent Act (1977), private sector tenancies that began before 15 January 1989 have rent increases limited to an amount linked to the Retail Price Index.This encourages long-term relationships between tenant and landlord.
I think I owe you a clarification on my last reply.
I live in different circumstances to you which influences my view on this. The costas in Spain have attracted a large Russian and eastern european contingent. In some of the bars I go to it's not unusual to see (illegally) armed bodyguards. The police are routinely armed on patrol and on border duty. I see guns every day when I cross the border - in the hands of agents of the government and of the close protection teams of wealthy people. Getting mugged in Spain is just as likely to involve a gun as a knife, and gun crime is deliberately under-reported so as not to scare away the tourists.
Equally, only this evening I was looking on SilkRoad2 and there I can buy guns and passports. This is a world that the UK has closed its eyes to and tried to close its borders to.
That's why I see the need for an armed civilian populace.
And rather like you, I had gun training whilst at school. I continued it into my first job though. The only difference is that the guns stopped being hand-held
True, there are certain countries where I would probably feel safer if I owned a gun. But the UK is not one, and I would like it to remain that way. Owning a gun would be an expensive hassle for me, and would make me no safer.
I used to enjoy shooting; my sister lives in the countryside and has taken stalking up much later in life, and has got rather good at it. But owning a gun has zero relevance to my suburban life, and long may that continue IMHO.
As an aside, a friend of mine once said: the best way of changing the mind of someone who is against guns is to take them to a proper, organised and safe shoot; either clay pigeon or rifle range. Few fail to enjoy it.
On the question of private sector rents,it is wrong to deny there is a problem illustrated by the man who found it cheaper to commute to London from Barcelona rather than reside there.
It's worth noting that rent controls do actually operate all over the country, including the capital. Thanks to the Rent Act (1977), private sector tenancies that began before 15 January 1989 have rent increases limited to an amount linked to the Retail Price Index.This encourages long-term relationships between tenant and landlord.
That's such a bogus example that it's hard to know where to start. Travel time, for one thing ...
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame, Fareweel our ancient glory; Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name, Sae fam'd in martial story. Now Sark rins over Solway sands, An' Tweed rins to the ocean, To mark where England's province stands- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What force or guile could not subdue, Thro' many warlike ages, Is wrought now by a coward few, For hireling traitor's wages. The English stell we could disdain, Secure in valour's station; But English gold has been our bane- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
O would, or I had seen the day That Treason thus could sell us, My auld grey head had lien in clay, Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace! But pith and power, till my last hour, I'll mak this declaration; We're bought and sold for English gold- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation! _________________________________________
Burns night is proceeding well here, with Haggis and Venison consumed and a rather fine Islay malt on the go. Will the parcel of Rogues win this time? Remember that Burns was a revenueman for the Hanovarian king; so may be a supporter of Balls, who may be reasonably decribed as a rogue!
I grew up in a flat my parents rented and which was covered by the rent controls existing from the 1960's when my parents first moved in. The original landlord was good, even if he did not do the sort of ongoing maintenance the property really needed. The wiring, for instance, was a nightmare.
But when he sold, the new landlord was an absolute bastard. He harassed my widowed mother; he neglected the property to such an extent that the Council eventually had to declare it unfit for human habitation and the landlord was forced to carry out extensive repairs to get rid of the damp and dry rot. This was the property I grew up in and it is little wonder I developed chest diseases every winter, damage which I recently learnt (following a recent illness) has permanently damaged my lungs such that I now have to do 40 mins of lung physio every day for the rest of my life.
Rent controls were what stopped that landlord evicting my mother and us; rent controls and the associated council powers made him do what he was unwilling to do i.e. make his property habitable. He did not - pace Mike L - "lose" his property or the value in it because he had never paid an over-inflated amount for it in the first place.
He was just someone who thought he could buy an asset cheaply and to hell with the people whose home it was. I loathe such people.
I don't know what Labour's proposals are. The main issue would seem to me to be that they are trying to deal with the symptom rather than the cause: a lack of property. But let's not pretend that all landlords are selfless people who care about their tenants.
On the question of private sector rents,it is wrong to deny there is a problem illustrated by the man who found it cheaper to commute to London from Barcelona rather than reside there.
It's worth noting that rent controls do actually operate all over the country, including the capital. Thanks to the Rent Act (1977), private sector tenancies that began before 15 January 1989 have rent increases limited to an amount linked to the Retail Price Index.This encourages long-term relationships between tenant and landlord.
Rent controls were what stopped that landlord evicting my mother and us; rent controls and the associated council powers made him do what he was unwilling to do i.e. make his property habitable. He did not - pace Mike L - "lose" his property or the value in it because he had never paid an over-inflated amount for it in the first place.
Of course - if the rent control / security of tenure is already in place when the landlord buys the property then that is reflected in the price the new landlord paid at that point.
Where you lose a substantial proportion of the value of your property is when new controls are introduced - because overnight on that date the position changes.
Rent controls, prices and incomes policies, sheesh who would have known that the problems of the 21st century can be solved by going back to the policies that failed in the past? Amazing.
However, if we are going to back to the early 1970s please can we have all the good bits from those years too?
I don't know what Labour's proposals are. The main issue would seem to me to be that they are trying to deal with the symptom rather than the cause: a lack of property.
Seeing as a real solution to the problem would be A) building far more houses than we have built since the end of WWII, would probably involve abolishing green belts, and C) would ideally see house prices fall in real terms for the next few decades, you bet they are dealing with the symptom rather than the cause. Dealing with the cause would be politically toxic. So instead we get gimmicks, because that's what politics is reduced to nowadays.
Handguns are also a sensible household defence against a Zombie apocalypse, the British approach with cricket bats is no way as effective as small arms. Shaun of the Dead vs Dawn of the Dead? No contest.
I have a large range of chainsaws and a couple of extremely sharp swords I am banking on in that eventuality :-)
Handguns are also a sensible household defence against a Zombie apocalypse, the British approach with cricket bats is no way as effective as small arms. Shaun of the Dead vs Dawn of the Dead? No contest.
I have a large range of chainsaws and a couple of extremely sharp swords I am banking on in that eventuality :-)
I have probably fired thousands of shots in my youth on the range, but the nearest I came to killing myself was with a chainsaw.
Dangerous bu**ers. Thank God for the protective clogging trousers I was wearing.
Handguns are also a sensible household defence against a Zombie apocalypse, the British approach with cricket bats is no way as effective as small arms. Shaun of the Dead vs Dawn of the Dead? No contest.
I have a large range of chainsaws and a couple of extremely sharp swords I am banking on in that eventuality :-)
I have probably fired thousands of shots in my youth on the range, but the nearest I came to killing myself was with a chainsaw.
Dangerous bu**ers. Thank God for the protective clogging trousers I was wearing.
Yep don't disagree with you there. Had a chain break on me last year and when I took my helmet off there was a gash right down across the visor. Still one of the most useful tools I own though - along with the air rifle for shooting pigeons and magpies.
Anyone see the latest Lib Dem news regarding Lembit Opik. Seems he likes his women young and beautiful. No crime in that. Storm in a teacup for Lembit, certainly compared to the damaging Rennard and the downright dodgy Hancock situations
Maybe the Lib Dems should publish a guide to flirting though ? Could be a bestseller.
"Elderly people who take antidepressants, particularly those who take SSRIs, may experience a severe fall in sodium (salt) levels known as hyponatraemia...More severe hyponatraemia can cause the following symptoms: blah, blah, psychosis (being unable to tell the difference between reality and your imagination), blah, blah"
I wonder if mentally disturbed / depressed young men who are given SSRIs for their mental issues and who *also* have some separate medical condition that mimics the response among the elderly i.e. low sodium salt levels (or whatever the actual mechanism is) can develop psychosis too?
I grew up in a flat my parents rented and which was covered by the rent controls existing from the 1960's when my parents first moved in. The original landlord was good, even if he did not do the sort of ongoing maintenance the property really needed. The wiring, for instance, was a nightmare.
But when he sold, the new landlord was an absolute bastard. He harassed my widowed mother; he neglected the property to such an extent that the Council eventually had to declare it unfit for human habitation and the landlord was forced to carry out extensive repairs to get rid of the damp and dry rot. This was the property I grew up in and it is little wonder I developed chest diseases every winter, damage which I recently learnt (following a recent illness) has permanently damaged my lungs such that I now have to do 40 mins of lung physio every day for the rest of my life.
Rent controls were what stopped that landlord evicting my mother and us; rent controls and the associated council powers made him do what he was unwilling to do i.e. make his property habitable. He did not - pace Mike L - "lose" his property or the value in it because he had never paid an over-inflated amount for it in the first place.
He was just someone who thought he could buy an asset cheaply and to hell with the people whose home it was. I loathe such people.
I don't know what Labour's proposals are. The main issue would seem to me to be that they are trying to deal with the symptom rather than the cause: a lack of property. But let's not pretend that all landlords are selfless people who care about their tenants.
The likelihood is that the landlord who let to your parents had his property's value cut by 50%, by having security of tenure imposed on him, plus being barred from raising the rent in line with inflation. So, he couldn't afford to maintain it, and sold it cheaply to a thug (eg Nicholas Hoogstraten) who sought to drive you out.
Rent controls cause the nastiest, most brutal, landlords to flourish, as decent people get put out of business.
Story about expenses. Whilst the comments below the line seem to be full of vitriol am I the only one who is sympathising with MPs over some of these expenses. I work in an office and there are always plenty of ballpoint pens, cut flush folders, printer ink, milk in the fridge. MPs don't (Or can't/shouldn't) have a company to buy these office essentials so I suppose they go on expenses. When you think about it like that its not so bad.
Rent control/security of tenure are fine for commercial tenancies, because the Court fixes Market rents.
What was toxic about rent controls for private tenancies was that people were forced to let at way below market rents. So, they had to sell out to the worst kinds of landlords, who would drive tenants out, to get a property with vacant possession.
50% rate is popular and makes sense. The government surplus nonsense is rightwing bilge based on their lobotomised deficit hysteria.
They haven't pledge a surplus BenM. Just a surplus on current spending. They've allowed themselves to borrow to fund capital expenditure. IFS today said that was a c. £25bn difference to the Tories - equivalent to around a 3-4% budget deficit.
Rent controls cause the nastiest, most brutal, landlords to flourish, as decent people get put out of business.
Licencing of all persons letting out rented properties would soon sort this, and is sorting this, as it is gradually being rolled out council by council, much to the annoyance of landlords.
Rent controls are now becoming essential to keep rents at realistic levels. What landlords haven't worked out is that they are a tiny minority of the electorate whereas people renting are a fast increasing proportion of the electorate. In the long term, this can only go one way in a democracy.....
50% rate is popular and makes sense. The government surplus nonsense is rightwing bilge based on their lobotomised deficit hysteria.
They haven't pledge a surplus BenM. Just a surplus on current spending. They've allowed themselves to borrow to fund capital expenditure. IFS today said that was a c. £25bn difference to the Tories - equivalent to around a 3-4% budget deficit.
I'm trying to work out if that means they will decrease capital expenditure ?
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame, Fareweel our ancient glory; Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name, Sae fam'd in martial story. Now Sark rins over Solway sands, An' Tweed rins to the ocean, To mark where England's province stands- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What force or guile could not subdue, Thro' many warlike ages, Is wrought now by a coward few, For hireling traitor's wages. The English stell we could disdain, Secure in valour's station; But English gold has been our bane- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
O would, or I had seen the day That Treason thus could sell us, My auld grey head had lien in clay, Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace! But pith and power, till my last hour, I'll mak this declaration; We're bought and sold for English gold- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation! _________________________________________
Burns night is proceeding well here, with Haggis and Venison consumed and a rather fine Islay malt on the go. Will the parcel of Rogues win this time? Remember that Burns was a revenueman for the Hanovarian king; so may be a supporter of Balls, who may be reasonably decribed as a rogue!
Given his activities isn't it more likely Robert Burns would be a LibDem if alive today, a man with a much publicised and chaotic sex life.
Before all our commie and nationalist pals claim "ownership" of him, perhaps they should consult his great great great great grandson, the Noble and Right Honourable the 3rd Viscount Weir. The genes of the great man even reach into one of the richest and most powerful families in 21st century Scotland.
Rent controls cause the nastiest, most brutal, landlords to flourish, as decent people get put out of business.
Licencing of all persons letting out rented properties would soon sort this, and is sorting this, as it is gradually being rolled out council by council, much to the annoyance of landlords.
Rent controls are now becoming essential to keep rents at realistic levels. What landlords haven't worked out is that they are a tiny minority of the electorate whereas people renting are a fast increasing proportion of the electorate. In the long term, this can only go one way in a democracy.....
once again England could do with learning from Scotland. Here all private landlords have to register with the local authority the let property is situated in. Multiple registrations apply where properties are owned in different authorities with a discount system. We have a national tenants deposit system with 3 approved providers.
50% rate is popular and makes sense. The government surplus nonsense is rightwing bilge based on their lobotomised deficit hysteria.
No problem. No one believes a future Labour government would achieve a budget surplus.
Despite their record being better than the Tories in doing so?
A budget surplus is no "achievement". Just an accident of timing.
Is it? The Tories inherited a deficit of 11% of GDP. We'd need huge cuts in public spending to balance in this Parliament.
Yes. 3 years surplus under Lab in 13 years v just 2 in 18 years of criminal mismanagement.
History didn't start in 2010.
Indeed it didn't and anyone who actually looked at the historical data would see that the budget surplus early in the Labour term only cam about because they stuck to Tory spending plans. As soon as they stopped doing that and started trying to think for themselves the deficit started to rise. No surprise give that Labour have always been economically illiterate. Something we see here day in day out with Ben's witterings.
David Wooding @DavidWooding 17m Ed Miliband writes for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow about the 50p tax rate - and other ways he plans to cut the deficit.
As any fule kno, the 50p tax rate will either increase or, at best, have a no positive effect on the deficit.
It makes you wonder just how robust are the "other ways" the two Eds plan to cut the deficit?
If BenM is still standing, perhaps he can give us a clue?
Lord Myners, Labour's former City Minister, warns the two Eds that raising the top rate of tax risks putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage on the international stage.
Lord Myners, who served as City minister in Gordon Brown’s government, attacked the policy, saying it would take the party back to the days of “old Labour”.
“The economic logic behind his [Mr Balls’s] thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,” he said. ... "Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
It appears the two Eds are unable to carry their own team.
50% rate is popular and makes sense. The government surplus nonsense is rightwing bilge based on their lobotomised deficit hysteria.
They haven't pledge a surplus BenM. Just a surplus on current spending. They've allowed themselves to borrow to fund capital expenditure. IFS today said that was a c. £25bn difference to the Tories - equivalent to around a 3-4% budget deficit.
I'm trying to work out if that means they will decrease capital expenditure ?
Nah. I suspect they will redefine a bunch of (current) maintenance expenditure as capex.
David Wooding @DavidWooding 17m Ed Miliband writes for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow about the 50p tax rate - and other ways he plans to cut the deficit.
As any fule kno, the 50p tax rate will either increase or, at best, have a no positive effect on the deficit.
It makes you wonder just how robust are the "other ways" the two Eds plan to cut the deficit?
If BenM is still standing, perhaps he can give us a clue?
Thats a fair point Mr Limp Pole.
@BenM Though the 50p rate may prove politically popular its not going to solve the deficit - any idea how Labour is planning to do this ?
David Wooding @DavidWooding 17m Ed Miliband writes for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow about the 50p tax rate - and other ways he plans to cut the deficit.
As any fule kno, the 50p tax rate will either increase or, at best, have a no positive effect on the deficit.
It makes you wonder just how robust are the "other ways" the two Eds plan to cut the deficit?
If BenM is still standing, perhaps he can give us a clue?
Thats a fair point Mr Limp Pole.
@BenM Though the 50p rate may prove politically popular its not going to solve the deficit - any idea how Labour is planning to do this ?
They could always lose their sanity completely and recycle the 60s genius idea of 'selective employment tax'.
Considering detector van evidence has never been presented in court, they can hardly prove you're watching live TV now, except by knocking on your door as you're watching. That's why those caught evading are usually housewives or the unemployed.
On topic: Surely even the daftest left-wing ideologue can understand that a tax rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate actually means, once you include national insurance) is counter-productive, since it a comprises a massive incentive to divert income to other forms, or to move to less punitive tax regimes, or not to set up your business here in the first place. When the tax man nicks nearly £1.50 for every £1 you get, you'll behave accordingly.
Since Ed Balls is neither daft, left-wing, nor an ideologue, he'll obviously have no trouble understanding this point, so it's a cynical piece of of crude class-war populism. Will voters fall for it? Quite possibly. But the reckoning will come all the same.
Comments
Of course the class warriors will love it and it's easy to think that only a tiny number of people earn over £150k.
However it affects anyone who aspires to earn over £150k - there will be many more people in say the first half of their career who currently earn much less but will be aiming to reach the top in due course.
Most of the above people won't get there but that's not the point - if people are aiming to get there and think they might then the 50p rate will still put them off.
We already know it will go to £10,000 in April 2014 so another £500 the following year isn't that much of a deal.
On this theme, I was amazed to see today that Croydon council are offering an amnesty to council tenants who are sub-letting council property, and that it's only been a criminal offense in October 2013. The whole system for allocating council housing is already massively unfair, and anyone who gets one in London becomes a de facto millionaire all because of an administrative decision by the State. People who abuse it should be properly punished.
'It's a no brainer that it will go to £10,500 in April 2015. Clegg has already called for it and Cameron will be happy to do it in return for the LDs agreeing to something else that he wants.'
No doubt a cut in the basic rate of income tax will go down well with hard working families & help with the cost of living..
It's all very well saying all politicians are the same but if, for example, you are a buy to let landlord - and I'm not talking about some multi-millionaire, maybe you just have one property let out - then you are going to have to think very, very carefully indeed.
Because if a Labour Government reintroduces rent controls and security of tenure then you lose your property.
Particularly if you switched your pension savings to buy to let after the previous Labour government trashed your pension.
Amazed that Labour are thinking about re-introducing failed policies from the 70's.
What are the risks to society of people having handguns? Dunblane
What are the benefits to society of people having handguns? None.
It's a no-brainer. ;-)
It is the unarmed status of the population that allow crimes to continue past the first minute.
And you can't charge a proper rent because the rent is set by the Council rent officer.
Try selling the property - who will want to buy a property with a tenant who can never be removed paying a controlled rent ? Its value will plummet.
And pray tell, how many kids would accidentally got shot each year? How many more guns would be in circulation?
I normally like what you write, and I'm not exactly fond of some of the gun legislation, but the idea that arming everyone would stop armed incidents is hilarious.
Armed police make enough mistakes here in the UK. And you want untrained people to bear arms and guns in schools?
http://londonist.com/2014/01/how-rent-controls-work-in-other-countries.php seems to disagree with your assesment.
In terms of property regulation in the UK, the big untapped reform is what to do with council housing. It's frankly ridiculous that people get to live at below market rents, subsidized by the taxpayer, just because they once long ago fulfilled the criteria. It's even worse when it was inherited from their parents. Meanwhile truly needy people get put in B&Bs. If the government really doesn't have the balls to make these people find non-taxpayer provided property, the least it could do is charge them market rents.
For less than 57 days of Labour Government Brown and Darling increased it, to poison the well for The Coalition.
The 50% tax rate lasted for 1.2% of Labour's time in office. So why the change?
Next time Balls or Milband spout about social justice and tax rates, they should reflect on why their party didn't need a 50% tax rate
By the way there won't be a general rent cap - each property is assessed by the Council rent officer who will set a "fair rent" for it.
(BTW, the reason why the right to bear arms is exactly the same as why we resile from arming the police - the fear of an over-mighty state. Neither country is going to be convinced of the merits of the other's position)
Having read Wiki, I'm still not any clearer as it seems there have been lots of different systems over time. Can anyone give a quick precis about what this would mean for a) tenants and b) landlords?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_England_and_Wales#Rent_Regulation_1965_to_1989
Most major gun incidents as reported tend to occur in schools, universities, shopping centres, theatres, restaurants etc. Those are all places were guns are not allowed.
So by declaring a "no gun zone" you effectively create an area where only criminals carry guns.
That's much the same as the whole of the UK right now. Enabling law abiding citizens who have gone on courses to earn their licence (nobody in Switzerland is "untrained" in gun handling and safety) to carry merely levels the playing field ... especially in the inner cities.
One group of lobbyists who'll be particularly anti gun will be manufacturers of pepper sprays sold (illegally, I think?) for ladies handbags. Nothing says No to a rapist quite like a Glock 19.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-25897872
As I spent much of my time there with my leg in a cast, it was the only sport I could do. ;-)
Therefore I dent my own argument ...
For instance, in my block of flats the former head of the management company lived in a rent control flat but didn't have much money - she had retired in the 70s on a fixed pension. So she skimped on maintenance spending to keep the service charge down, and there was no way to vote her off the board (directors were appointed by the board, not elected). The result was that when she sadly passed on there was a massive backlog of expenditure - it has worked out at about £1m over 10 years - to get the block back up to standard.
But I would love rent controls. You'd just buy controlled property at a sensible yield (ie lower price) and wait until some future government abolished rent controls. It's exactly the same model as buying properties with sitting tenants now, but there would likely be many more opportunities.
What did the Lib Dems in with the Rennard case was the initial cover-up and lack of process.
If you personally had say £150k to invest would you buy a property and then let it to someone who you could never ever get out and on the basis that the Council will determine your rent (and you have a legal obligation to maintain the property)?
Of course not.
Availability of property to rent will collapse. In the 70s it didn't matter too much as there was lots of Council housing. What will happen now? It's not going to be pretty.
The only positive side effect will be that it will be far easier to buy.
Anything that reduces house prices will not go down well with the public. Especially as they are not tackling the real problems in the housing market, one of which is second homes.
Interesting times ...
I think I owe you a clarification on my last reply.
I live in different circumstances to you which influences my view on this. The costas in Spain have attracted a large Russian and eastern european contingent. In some of the bars I go to it's not unusual to see (illegally) armed bodyguards. The police are routinely armed on patrol and on border duty. I see guns every day when I cross the border - in the hands of agents of the government and of the close protection teams of wealthy people. Getting mugged in Spain is just as likely to involve a gun as a knife, and gun crime is deliberately under-reported so as not to scare away the tourists.
Equally, only this evening I was looking on SilkRoad2 and there I can buy guns and passports. This is a world that the UK has closed its eyes to and tried to close its borders to.
That's why I see the need for an armed civilian populace.
And rather like you, I had gun training whilst at school. I continued it into my first job though. The only difference is that the guns stopped being hand-held
There'd be a test for senility, for example, which would rule you out.
You've given Mr.Jones the perfect excuse to start rambling...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477291/London-rents-high-cheaper-live-BARCELONA-commute-heres-.html
It's worth noting that rent controls do actually operate all over the country, including the capital. Thanks to the Rent Act (1977), private sector tenancies that began before 15 January 1989 have rent increases limited to an amount linked to the Retail Price Index.This encourages long-term relationships between tenant and landlord.
I used to enjoy shooting; my sister lives in the countryside and has taken stalking up much later in life, and has got rather good at it. But owning a gun has zero relevance to my suburban life, and long may that continue IMHO.
As an aside, a friend of mine once said: the best way of changing the mind of someone who is against guns is to take them to a proper, organised and safe shoot; either clay pigeon or rifle range. Few fail to enjoy it.
our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae
fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark
rins over Solway sands,
An'
Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark
where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by
a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell
we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
O would, or
I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell
us,
My auld
grey head had lien
in clay,
Wi'
Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But
pith and power, till
my last hour,
I'll mak
this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
_________________________________________
Burns night is proceeding well here, with Haggis and Venison consumed and a rather fine Islay malt on the go. Will the parcel of Rogues win this time? Remember that Burns was a revenueman for the Hanovarian king; so may be a supporter of Balls, who may be reasonably decribed as a rogue!
But when he sold, the new landlord was an absolute bastard. He harassed my widowed mother; he neglected the property to such an extent that the Council eventually had to declare it unfit for human habitation and the landlord was forced to carry out extensive repairs to get rid of the damp and dry rot. This was the property I grew up in and it is little wonder I developed chest diseases every winter, damage which I recently learnt (following a recent illness) has permanently damaged my lungs such that I now have to do 40 mins of lung physio every day for the rest of my life.
Rent controls were what stopped that landlord evicting my mother and us; rent controls and the associated council powers made him do what he was unwilling to do i.e. make his property habitable. He did not - pace Mike L - "lose" his property or the value in it because he had never paid an over-inflated amount for it in the first place.
He was just someone who thought he could buy an asset cheaply and to hell with the people whose home it was. I loathe such people.
I don't know what Labour's proposals are. The main issue would seem to me to be that they are trying to deal with the symptom rather than the cause: a lack of property. But let's not pretend that all landlords are selfless people who care about their tenants.
Where you lose a substantial proportion of the value of your property is when new controls are introduced - because overnight on that date the position changes.
However, if we are going to back to the early 1970s please can we have all the good bits from those years too?
It is Kippers carrying them that worries me.
Both would have had a higher than average chance of having guns in their school when they grew up !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545901/Cybernats-unmasked-Meet-footsoldiers-pro-Scottish-independence-army-online-poison-shames-Nationalists.html#ixzz2rRn3BxzV
Dangerous bu**ers. Thank God for the protective clogging trousers I was wearing.
Maybe the Lib Dems should publish a guide to flirting though ? Could be a bestseller.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Antidepressant-drugs/Pages/Side-effects.aspx
"Elderly people who take antidepressants, particularly those who take SSRIs, may experience a severe fall in sodium (salt) levels known as hyponatraemia...More severe hyponatraemia can cause the following symptoms: blah, blah, psychosis (being unable to tell the difference between reality and your imagination), blah, blah"
I wonder if mentally disturbed / depressed young men who are given SSRIs for their mental issues and who *also* have some separate medical condition that mimics the response among the elderly i.e. low sodium salt levels (or whatever the actual mechanism is) can develop psychosis too?
Rent controls cause the nastiest, most brutal, landlords to flourish, as decent people get put out of business.
Story about expenses. Whilst the comments below the line seem to be full of vitriol am I the only one who is sympathising with MPs over some of these expenses. I work in an office and there are always plenty of ballpoint pens, cut flush folders, printer ink, milk in the fridge. MPs don't (Or can't/shouldn't) have a company to buy these office essentials so I suppose they go on expenses. When you think about it like that its not so bad.
Yep That's Us
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bully-pulpit/#more-48362
Boo! Government surplus pledged by Labour.
50% rate is popular and makes sense. The government surplus nonsense is rightwing bilge based on their lobotomised deficit hysteria.
What was toxic about rent controls for private tenancies was that people were forced to let at way below market rents. So, they had to sell out to the worst kinds of landlords, who would drive tenants out, to get a property with vacant possession.
A budget surplus is no "achievement". Just an accident of timing.
A reasonable article about one of the pressures that the BBC licence fee might come under, as I've been wittering on about for ages:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/01/should-bbc-viewers-who-watch-online-only-through-iplayer-be-made-to-pay-the-tv-license-fee/
Rent controls are now becoming essential to keep rents at realistic levels. What landlords haven't worked out is that they are a tiny minority of the electorate whereas people renting are a fast increasing proportion of the electorate. In the long term, this can only go one way in a democracy.....
History didn't start in 2010.
Before all our commie and nationalist pals claim "ownership" of him, perhaps they should consult his great great great great grandson, the Noble and Right Honourable the 3rd Viscount Weir. The genes of the great man even reach into one of the richest and most powerful families in 21st century Scotland.
A budget surplus is no "achievement". Just an accident of timing.
Under Labour governments you are right, Ben.
Under Tory governments it is a policy goal supported by well-worked and independently verified fiscal plans.
Ed Miliband writes for The Sun on Sunday tomorrow about the 50p tax rate - and other ways he plans to cut the deficit.
As any fule kno, the 50p tax rate will either increase or, at best, have a no positive effect on the deficit.
It makes you wonder just how robust are the "other ways" the two Eds plan to cut the deficit?
If BenM is still standing, perhaps he can give us a clue?
Today I found out that one of Justin Bieber's parents lives near me.
What will tomorrow bring?
Lord Myners, who served as City minister in Gordon Brown’s government, attacked the policy, saying it would take the party back to the days of “old Labour”.
“The economic logic behind his [Mr Balls’s] thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,” he said. ... "Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
It appears the two Eds are unable to carry their own team.
http://bit.ly/1enVnUl
@BenM Though the 50p rate may prove politically popular its not going to solve the deficit - any idea how Labour is planning to do this ?
Since Ed Balls is neither daft, left-wing, nor an ideologue, he'll obviously have no trouble understanding this point, so it's a cynical piece of of crude class-war populism. Will voters fall for it? Quite possibly. But the reckoning will come all the same.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=10597589&cc=10545545