I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Revenue from second homes should be used to build affordable housing for local residents.
Yes but which local residents? I haven't a problem if the revenue from second homes is pooled and used to build affordable housing in areas where social housing is really needed. And that's not just in popular tourist resorts.
If you don't want to pay property taxes in a popular tourist resort, don't own a property in a popular tourist resort.
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
Given that Argentina was relying on Chinese vaccines, is 'scepticism' really a disqualifying attitude to have?
Your continual advocacy of Putinists around the globe is obvious, ridiculous . . . and totally predictable.
As is your calling everyone whom you dislike a Putinist.
At the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Milei entered the Palace of the Argentine National Congress with a Ukrainian flag, showing his position towards the conflict.[130]
As I pointed out earlier, support for UKR in itself does NOT mean that a politico is NOT a practicing Putinist.
What IS proof, is their hyper-populism combined with disrespect for constitutional restraints and democratic norms.
This is all so much projection. You're perfectly comfortable with politicians disrespecting constitutional restraints, violating democratic norms, and even serving Russian interests as long as their face fits.
Former President Donald J. Trump plans to upstage the first Republican primary debate on Wednesday by sitting for an online interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, according to multiple people briefed on the matter.
In the past 24 hours, Mr. Trump has told people close to him that he has made up his mind and will skip the debate in Milwaukee, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.
NY Times
He has to surrender for arrest in Georgia next week. Surrendering on the day of the debate solves multiple problems: gets him out of the debate and gives him something to moan about on social media..
I just realised that the Falklands War was closer in time to WW2 than it is to now
My earliest memories are from that year, although not the Falklands War itself.
It's strange how the mind works. When I hear mention of the Falklands War I don't think about Thatcher or the Taskforce or Goose Green or Prince Andrew or "Gotcha", I think about this guy I met at that exact time (in Coulsdon) who was amazing at Mick Jagger impressions. He'd have me incapacitated with it. Never laughed as much before or since. The sort of short vivid friendship that you can have at 21 but not in later life unless you're in the creative arts.
The best Mick Jagger impression I've heard was David Bowie's:
On the Letby case, this is where we’re really missing Cyclefree. She’d skewer the box-ticking arse-covering hospital management expertly. Frankly, they all need to be dismissed instantly, and quite possibly some of them should be going to jail.
Someone should email her and ask if she can write a header.
On the Letby case, this is where we’re really missing Cyclefree. She’d skewer the box-ticking arse-covering hospital management expertly. Frankly, they all need to be dismissed instantly, and quite possibly some of them should be going to jail.
Someone should email her and ask if she can write a header.
Presumably with some footage of Dura Ace being waterboarded attached.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
Does that include landlords?
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
I recall that when council tax was first introduced, second homes attracted a rate of only 50% of normal council tax on the grounds that they placed far less of a demand on local council services. There was and is no call on the really expensive council services such as elderly social care, looked after children or schools for example. That situation hasn't changed, but now those same local councils receive loads more, 400% of the normal revenue in the case of Gwynedd. It's a huge financial windfall to those lucky councils.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be the option to bring in a premium tax on second homes to shape the demand for housing. What I'm arguing is that the councils with the concentrations of second homes shouldn't be the only councils benefitting from all that extra dosh.
"The New Yorker has a long piece about Ron DeSantis that illustrates something that is clear to me but does not seem to be clear to many elite Republicans:
Across several months, the source familiar with the campaign said that it consistently struggled to find a message critical of Trump that resonated with rank-and-file Republican voters. Even attaching Trump’s name to an otherwise effective message had a tendency to invert the results , this source said. If a moderator said that the covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, seventy per cent of the Republicans surveyed would agree. But, if the moderator said that Trump’s covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, the source said, seventy per cent would disagree."
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
Does that include landlords?
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
I recall that when council tax was first introduced, second homes attracted a rate of only 50% of normal council tax on the grounds that they placed far less of a demand on local council services. There was and is no call on the really expensive council services such as elderly social care, looked after children or schools for example. That situation hasn't changed, but now those same local councils receive loads more, 400% of the normal revenue in the case of Gwynedd. It's a huge financial windfall to those lucky councils.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be the option to bring in a premium tax on second homes to shape the demand for housing. What I'm arguing is that the councils with the concentrations of second homes shouldn't be the only councils benefitting from all that extra dosh.
How does a council determine which is a first home and which a second?
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Revenue from second homes should be used to build affordable housing for local residents.
Yes but which local residents? I haven't a problem if the revenue from second homes is pooled and used to build affordable housing in areas where social housing is really needed. And that's not just in popular tourist resorts.
I was thinking of villages in the Scottish Highlands, but West Wales, the Lake District, South West England all have areas where locals are priced out by second home owners, and can’t rent either, because holiday lets earn more than long term rentals.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
What's wrong with Fabricant advocating a bit of flexibility on this?
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
Does that include landlords?
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
I recall that when council tax was first introduced, second homes attracted a rate of only 50% of normal council tax on the grounds that they placed far less of a demand on local council services. There was and is no call on the really expensive council services such as elderly social care, looked after children or schools for example. That situation hasn't changed, but now those same local councils receive loads more, 400% of the normal revenue in the case of Gwynedd. It's a huge financial windfall to those lucky councils.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be the option to bring in a premium tax on second homes to shape the demand for housing. What I'm arguing is that the councils with the concentrations of second homes shouldn't be the only councils benefitting from all that extra dosh.
How does a council determine which is a first home and which a second?
The first home is the one registered as your main residence for CGT purposes.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
I mean Buckley wasn't an old style Republican in the same sense as Bernie Sanders isn't technically a Democrat. Useful for those who are betting against majorities in the Senate but not much for anyone else.
What he would have made of the current Republican party is of course a very different question. I really don't see what small c Conservatives do in the US. They no longer have a party at all.
"The New Yorker has a long piece about Ron DeSantis that illustrates something that is clear to me but does not seem to be clear to many elite Republicans:
Across several months, the source familiar with the campaign said that it consistently struggled to find a message critical of Trump that resonated with rank-and-file Republican voters. Even attaching Trump’s name to an otherwise effective message had a tendency to invert the results , this source said. If a moderator said that the covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, seventy per cent of the Republicans surveyed would agree. But, if the moderator said that Trump’s covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, the source said, seventy per cent would disagree."
If a moderator said that the covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern UK history, seventy per cent of Conhome respondents would agree. But, if the moderator said that Johnson's covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern UK history, the source said, seventy per cent would disagree.
"The New Yorker has a long piece about Ron DeSantis that illustrates something that is clear to me but does not seem to be clear to many elite Republicans:
Across several months, the source familiar with the campaign said that it consistently struggled to find a message critical of Trump that resonated with rank-and-file Republican voters. Even attaching Trump’s name to an otherwise effective message had a tendency to invert the results , this source said. If a moderator said that the covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, seventy per cent of the Republicans surveyed would agree. But, if the moderator said that Trump’s covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, the source said, seventy per cent would disagree."
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
I just realised that the Falklands War was closer in time to WW2 than it is to now
My earliest memories are from that year, although not the Falklands War itself.
It's strange how the mind works. When I hear mention of the Falklands War I don't think about Thatcher or the Taskforce or Goose Green or Prince Andrew or "Gotcha", I think about this guy I met at that exact time (in Coulsdon) who was amazing at Mick Jagger impressions. He'd have me incapacitated with it. Never laughed as much before or since. The sort of short vivid friendship that you can have at 21 but not in later life unless you're in the creative arts.
The best Mick Jagger impression I've heard was David Bowie's:
"The New Yorker has a long piece about Ron DeSantis that illustrates something that is clear to me but does not seem to be clear to many elite Republicans:
Across several months, the source familiar with the campaign said that it consistently struggled to find a message critical of Trump that resonated with rank-and-file Republican voters. Even attaching Trump’s name to an otherwise effective message had a tendency to invert the results , this source said. If a moderator said that the covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, seventy per cent of the Republicans surveyed would agree. But, if the moderator said that Trump’s covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, the source said, seventy per cent would disagree."
Unsurprising. I really don't know how he managed it, but the rank and file just love the guy it seems, and it's always been true that you can adjust how people respond to something by indicating whose idea it supposedly was - TUD's hypothetical example might not play out to the same degree as the Trump feverish support, but the principle has been demonstrated across the spectrum many times.
As for WilliamGlenn's theory, that's a bit implausible when the average american, or Brit, don't know half as much as they think they do about even pretty fundamental things.
No doubt rigorous disciplinary action, and indeed prosecutions, are in hand as we type. Who could doubt that people would be held responsible for such a travesty?
Well, apart from those who have ever had contact with any of our public services, of course.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
What's wrong with Fabricant advocating a bit of flexibility on this?
Selective application of the law or licensing restrictions when he is in favour is fine?
Actually I don't actually have a problem with the idea of being a bit relaxed about things, but without a formal route to permit it it's probably not worth opening the door to 'Nah, just ignore it because it's fine' style comments about it. Especially since outside of trouble spots the police really don't want to be bothered by such petty concerns anyway and so probably will turn a blind eye - but in his area possibly cannot now, lest it look like they are.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
As far as I understand, instead of concentrating on charging a fee for driving on a day there, they're instead encouraging investment towards the most polluting vehicles with incentives to get them upgraded, including especially for example having upgraded the buses.
A bus driving around all day every day emits far more emissions than a car or van making a return journey does. Buses make up over 70% of emissions on some roads.
So, they plan to ask for grants from Whitehall instead of raising money from Manchester. (And to ban national coach companies from serving the city.) It makes sense to me that such a plan would be both faster and more popular in Manchester. Of course, it ultimately means committing funds that could have gone to something else.
No.
No bans, and I don't believe extra finance either. As far as I understand they're using the already-available resources to target the problematic issues sooner, rather than just having a blanket policy that doesn't deal with the issues.
The prior scheme, like the proposed London ULEZ, would have targeted the entirety of Greater Manchester but the problems in air quality, like in London, are not the same across the whole area. The outskirts of Wigan don't have the same air issues as inner Manchester or inner Salford, and having such a blanket policy both causes unnecessary hardship in Wigan, while not fixing the problems in Manchester or Salford.
Instead of a blanket policy that doesn't work, targeting the areas where there are problems and the vehicles that are causing those emissions on those roads, the problem can be solved more and sooner.
The plan you have been advocating is to spend money on new buses and new cars. Who is going to pay for them?
I've never really seen much of Michelle Obama. I know First Lady's do tend to get more involved that spouses of PMs do here, but is she known to be pretty charismatic, a good orator etc? Obviously there is name appeal, but what are her strengths beyond that?
I've never really seen much of Michelle Obama. I know First Lady's do tend to get more involved that spouses of PMs do here, but is she known to be pretty charismatic, a good orator etc? Obviously there is name appeal, but what are her strengths beyond that?
Her main strength is not being any of the other candidates.
The F-16 bollocks is being completely over-analysed. The principle worth is the hopium for Ukraine not for any staggering change in aviation capability. It will get them back to parity with the Su-35/Adder combo but the Ukrainian F-16 fleet will be small and inexperienced for a very long time so the worth is symbolic and totemic more than kinetic. They show that the US is still sort of engaged and are going to continue to support Green T-Shirt.
See also: Leopard. They were going to be the answer to everything, then they arrived, nothing much happened and the Ukrainian propaganda effort moved on to lobbying for the next thing.
I've never really seen much of Michelle Obama. I know First Lady's do tend to get more involved that spouses of PMs do here, but is she known to be pretty charismatic, a good orator etc? Obviously there is name appeal, but what are her strengths beyond that?
Her main strength is not being any of the other candidates.
No doubt rigorous disciplinary action, and indeed prosecutions, are in hand as we type. Who could doubt that people would be held responsible for such a travesty?
Well, apart from those who have ever had contact with any of our public services, of course.
While this was murder rather than incompetence, so very unusual, it is not unique to public services or to this country. All big organisations are prone to it.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Revenue from second homes should be used to build affordable housing for local residents.
Yes but which local residents? I haven't a problem if the revenue from second homes is pooled and used to build affordable housing in areas where social housing is really needed. And that's not just in popular tourist resorts.
I was thinking of villages in the Scottish Highlands, but West Wales, the Lake District, South West England all have areas where locals are priced out by second home owners, and can’t rent either, because holiday lets earn more than long term rentals.
I wrote "not just". I didn't write "not". The problem of lack of affordable housing in the UK is not just an issue for tourist resorts.
At least in rural areas there are potential solutions at minimal cost. In contrast to urban areas there is plenty of potential development land, and expanding the size of a village a bit doesn't have much impact. Building on 3% rather than 2% of a rural area doesn't really change it's character. And councils already have powers to put conditions on planning permission that restrict residence to local people. Where those powers are used you find two parallel housing markets. But councils are choosing to restrict development and not to use those powers on enough of a scale to make a difference.
Also, in practice what you'll find is that if there's a pretty seaside village, then prices there will be at a premium, because that's where the tourists want to go. The locals will live a few miles away from the tourist hotspots and look with disdain at the silly prices the outsiders are willing to pay. So take Aberdyfi in Gwynedd for example - lots of second homes there - but the locals working there will generally live 4 miles down the road in Tywyn where prices are 30% or 40% less and pretty afffordable.
If councils in tourist hotspots wish to discourage second homes by levying extra council tax, that's OK by me. But they should pool the money, not keep it for themselves.
No doubt rigorous disciplinary action, and indeed prosecutions, are in hand as we type. Who could doubt that people would be held responsible for such a travesty?
Well, apart from those who have ever had contact with any of our public services, of course.
While this was murder rather than incompetence, so very unusual, it is not unique to public services or to this country. All big organisations are prone to it.
Yes, I agree. In the Met the solution is normally a promotion.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
Does that include landlords?
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
I recall that when council tax was first introduced, second homes attracted a rate of only 50% of normal council tax on the grounds that they placed far less of a demand on local council services. There was and is no call on the really expensive council services such as elderly social care, looked after children or schools for example. That situation hasn't changed, but now those same local councils receive loads more, 400% of the normal revenue in the case of Gwynedd. It's a huge financial windfall to those lucky councils.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be the option to bring in a premium tax on second homes to shape the demand for housing. What I'm arguing is that the councils with the concentrations of second homes shouldn't be the only councils benefitting from all that extra dosh.
That situation has changed, the biggest problem facing this country is a shortfall of houses.
Now the best solution would be to build, build, build more houses. Millions more.
But in the meantime, if you want to own two properties and that faces a hefty tax well you have a simple choice. Pay the tax, or sell up and let someone else live there instead.
If you choose to pay the tax, don't whinge about it. Nobody is making you pay it, you're voluntarily owning multiple homes at a time that millions can't afford one because of the shortage of supply.
No doubt rigorous disciplinary action, and indeed prosecutions, are in hand as we type. Who could doubt that people would be held responsible for such a travesty?
Well, apart from those who have ever had contact with any of our public services, of course.
While this was murder rather than incompetence, so very unusual, it is not unique to public services or to this country. All big organisations are prone to it.
The spreadsheet the Beeb showed where the nurse is the only one present in room in every single death speaks volumes.
The public sector spends so much time and effort processing data. It beggars belief that this wasn't noticed.
The F-16 bollocks is being completely over-analysed. The principle worth is the hopium for Ukraine not for any staggering change in aviation capability. It will get them back to parity with the Su-35/Adder combo but the Ukrainian F-16 fleet will be small and inexperienced for a very long time so the worth is symbolic and totemic more than kinetic. They show that the US is still sort of engaged and are going to continue to support Green T-Shirt.
See also: Leopard. They were going to be the answer to everything, then they arrived, nothing much happened and the Ukrainian propaganda effort moved on to lobbying for the next thing.
I can hardly blame them - they want and need as much stuff as they can possibly get, being as demanding as they can get away with without pissing off allies who want to help but for various reasons won't exactly hand over everything in one big go.
I also think you really underestimate the worth of showing continued US engagement in shoring up others, in your eagerness to make an edgy take about 'green t-shirt'. In a long, grinding affair, demonstrating continued support seems to this armchair person to be pretty important, and so far a lot more sustained than I had expected.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
Does that include landlords?
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
I recall that when council tax was first introduced, second homes attracted a rate of only 50% of normal council tax on the grounds that they placed far less of a demand on local council services. There was and is no call on the really expensive council services such as elderly social care, looked after children or schools for example. That situation hasn't changed, but now those same local councils receive loads more, 400% of the normal revenue in the case of Gwynedd. It's a huge financial windfall to those lucky councils.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be the option to bring in a premium tax on second homes to shape the demand for housing. What I'm arguing is that the councils with the concentrations of second homes shouldn't be the only councils benefitting from all that extra dosh.
That situation has changed, the biggest problem facing this country is a shortfall of houses.
Now the best solution would be to build, build, build more houses. Millions more.
But in the meantime, if you want to own two properties and that faces a hefty tax well you have a simple choice. Pay the tax, or sell up and let someone else live there instead.
If you choose to pay the tax, don't whinge about it. Nobody is making you pay it, you're voluntarily owning multiple homes at a time that millions can't afford one because of the shortage of supply.
I can't see where you are in disagreement with me. Try reading my final paragraph if you think you are.
I've never really seen much of Michelle Obama. I know First Lady's do tend to get more involved that spouses of PMs do here, but is she known to be pretty charismatic, a good orator etc? Obviously there is name appeal, but what are her strengths beyond that?
Her main strength is not being any of the other candidates.
Michelle Obama AIN'T a candidate in 2024.
Neither was Eleanor Roosevelt in 1948 . . . or 1952 etc., etc. even though ER was WAY more politically active than MO.
PLUS Mrs Obama does NOT wish to go down the same road - or anywhere near it - traveled by Mrs Clinton . . .
Looking at flats in the same building as me, in an unfashionable part of East London, to estimate what my likely rental increase this year will be.
I was paying £2100pcm for a three bed flat in 2019; an identical flat in the same building is being advertised for £4100pcm today.
Come south of the river. Where we live in SE14, which I would imagine is far nicer and just as central as any unfashionable area of East London, you can rent a 5 bedroom house for £4k! Three bedroom flats for £2100 are available too. We moved from East to South East London in 2002, best move we ever made.
Not sure about renting, but you can buy a 1 bed flat in Barking for about £200k. Thats about £10k per year in interest payments at current 5 year fixed rates.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
Does that include landlords?
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
I recall that when council tax was first introduced, second homes attracted a rate of only 50% of normal council tax on the grounds that they placed far less of a demand on local council services. There was and is no call on the really expensive council services such as elderly social care, looked after children or schools for example. That situation hasn't changed, but now those same local councils receive loads more, 400% of the normal revenue in the case of Gwynedd. It's a huge financial windfall to those lucky councils.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be the option to bring in a premium tax on second homes to shape the demand for housing. What I'm arguing is that the councils with the concentrations of second homes shouldn't be the only councils benefitting from all that extra dosh.
That situation has changed, the biggest problem facing this country is a shortfall of houses.
Now the best solution would be to build, build, build more houses. Millions more.
But in the meantime, if you want to own two properties and that faces a hefty tax well you have a simple choice. Pay the tax, or sell up and let someone else live there instead.
If you choose to pay the tax, don't whinge about it. Nobody is making you pay it, you're voluntarily owning multiple homes at a time that millions can't afford one because of the shortage of supply.
I can't see where you are in disagreement with me. Try reading my final paragraph.
But the concentration of second homes is a concentration of homes that would be affordable to the local residents if people weren't owning those as second homes.
And considering that helping to ensure local residents can attain a home is a responsibility of the Council, fulfilling that by taxing the owner of the home that is being denied to others seems eminently reasonable. [EDIT: While remembering my preferred solution is to construct millions more homes in this country instead, this is not my preference. /EDIT]
If anyone doesn't want to pay the tax, they can sell up.
Now personally, I'd prefer this to be a nationwide surcharge, charged to all landlords who would be liable to pay both Council Tax themselves (rather than their tenants being responsible) and a surcharge too.
But in the interim, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer fails to implement such a policy, I have no qualms with Councils doing so independently using devolved powers.
Anyone who doesn't want to pay the tax has an easy way out of it. Without affecting their own home, or transportation, or schooling or care as you have said.
Mind you, I know of incidents where nurses raised concerns about a Consultant at another Trust, and were brushed off for years too. Incompetence rather than murder.
We had an incident in my Trust not so long ago, where patients in the operating theatres were suddenly going hypoxic, then a particular member of staff would turn up and save the day. Whiffs a bit like this Letby case, as only happened when he was on duty.
Our management took the concerns seriously and installed covert surveillance cameras. This caught the suspect red handed sabotaging an anaesthetic machine. He was convicted.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Still thinking about it. No, that can't work, because it's more than housing policy. There are true additional costs that are born eby the holiday home areas.
An example: an area has a school. Then half the houses get bought by holiday home owners. Half trhe school roll vanishes as the people have to move out. The school has to operate at less than optimum efficiency, merge, whatever.
It's not really a cost to a council to educate fewer kids, though.
It is, because it conflicts with central government norms in all sorts of ways: for instance, range of subjects taught vs teachers available being half as many because of set ratios of teachers to pupils.
Comments
If you do, that's your choice.
Who was the first third-party candidate to land a seat in the United States Senate since the Progressives of 1940.
He died today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7-7HJCXx10
To be clear, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be the option to bring in a premium tax on second homes to shape the demand for housing. What I'm arguing is that the councils with the concentrations of second homes shouldn't be the only councils benefitting from all that extra dosh.
"The New Yorker has a long piece about Ron DeSantis that illustrates something that is clear to me but does not seem to be clear to many elite Republicans:
Across several months, the source familiar with the campaign said that it consistently struggled to find a message critical of Trump that resonated with rank-and-file Republican voters. Even attaching Trump’s name to an otherwise effective message had a tendency to invert the results , this source said. If a moderator said that the covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, seventy per cent of the Republicans surveyed would agree. But, if the moderator said that Trump’s covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern American history, the source said, seventy per cent would disagree."
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/republicans-who-love-too-much
I had no idea to be honest but it was in the NY Times today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Eagles
Can one even begin to imagine the meeting where the execs of the modern BBC commission this?
What he would have made of the current Republican party is of course a very different question. I really don't see what small c Conservatives do in the US. They no longer have a party at all.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.178163685
A wee hypothetical tribute act.
If a moderator said that the covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern UK history, seventy per cent of Conhome respondents would agree. But, if the moderator said that Johnson's covid lockdowns destroyed small businesses and facilitated the largest upward wealth transfer in modern UK history, the source said, seventy per cent would disagree.
As for WilliamGlenn's theory, that's a bit implausible when the average american, or Brit, don't know half as much as they think they do about even pretty fundamental things.
BBC News - Hospital bosses ignored months of doctors' warnings about Lucy Letby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934
"I’m ready to put a marker down: I predict that Joe Biden will not be the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2024."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-biden-isnt-going-to-be-the-democratic-nominee/
Well, apart from those who have ever had contact with any of our public services, of course.
Actually I don't actually have a problem with the idea of being a bit relaxed about things, but without a formal route to permit it it's probably not worth opening the door to 'Nah, just ignore it because it's fine' style comments about it. Especially since outside of trouble spots the police really don't want to be bothered by such petty concerns anyway and so probably will turn a blind eye - but in his area possibly cannot now, lest it look like they are.
See also: Leopard. They were going to be the answer to everything, then they arrived, nothing much happened and the Ukrainian propaganda effort moved on to lobbying for the next thing.
Frankly I am tempted to say this is the root of these problems.
Thoughts @Foxy ?
At least in rural areas there are potential solutions at minimal cost. In contrast to urban areas there is plenty of potential development land, and expanding the size of a village a bit doesn't have much impact. Building on 3% rather than 2% of a rural area doesn't really change it's character. And councils already have powers to put conditions on planning permission that restrict residence to local people. Where those powers are used you find two parallel housing markets. But councils are choosing to restrict development and not to use those powers on enough of a scale to make a difference.
Also, in practice what you'll find is that if there's a pretty seaside village, then prices there will be at a premium, because that's where the tourists want to go. The locals will live a few miles away from the tourist hotspots and look with disdain at the silly prices the outsiders are willing to pay. So take Aberdyfi in Gwynedd for example - lots of second homes there - but the locals working there will generally live 4 miles down the road in Tywyn where prices are 30% or 40% less and pretty afffordable.
If councils in tourist hotspots wish to discourage second homes by levying extra council tax, that's OK by me. But they should pool the money, not keep it for themselves.
Now the best solution would be to build, build, build more houses. Millions more.
But in the meantime, if you want to own two properties and that faces a hefty tax well you have a simple choice. Pay the tax, or sell up and let someone else live there instead.
If you choose to pay the tax, don't whinge about it. Nobody is making you pay it, you're voluntarily owning multiple homes at a time that millions can't afford one because of the shortage of supply.
The public sector spends so much time and effort processing data. It beggars belief that this wasn't noticed.
She's a fine athlete -- or was, when she was younger.
I also think you really underestimate the worth of showing continued US engagement in shoring up others, in your eagerness to make an edgy take about 'green t-shirt'. In a long, grinding affair, demonstrating continued support seems to this armchair person to be pretty important, and so far a lot more sustained than I had expected.
Breaking: Cyclefree is back on the NEW thread
Neither was Eleanor Roosevelt in 1948 . . . or 1952 etc., etc. even though ER was WAY more politically active than MO.
PLUS Mrs Obama does NOT wish to go down the same road - or anywhere near it - traveled by Mrs Clinton . . .
And considering that helping to ensure local residents can attain a home is a responsibility of the Council, fulfilling that by taxing the owner of the home that is being denied to others seems eminently reasonable. [EDIT: While remembering my preferred solution is to construct millions more homes in this country instead, this is not my preference. /EDIT]
If anyone doesn't want to pay the tax, they can sell up.
Now personally, I'd prefer this to be a nationwide surcharge, charged to all landlords who would be liable to pay both Council Tax themselves (rather than their tenants being responsible) and a surcharge too.
But in the interim, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer fails to implement such a policy, I have no qualms with Councils doing so independently using devolved powers.
Anyone who doesn't want to pay the tax has an easy way out of it. Without affecting their own home, or transportation, or schooling or care as you have said.
https://twitter.com/DrHenryMarsh/status/1692575205971968181?t=qZ4ODROgtc5RCXiQPrnv9Q&s=19
Mind you, I know of incidents where nurses raised concerns about a Consultant at another Trust, and were brushed off for years too. Incompetence rather than murder.
We had an incident in my Trust not so long ago, where patients in the operating theatres were suddenly going hypoxic, then a particular member of staff would turn up and save the day. Whiffs a bit like this Letby case, as only happened when he was on duty.
Our management took the concerns seriously and installed covert surveillance cameras. This caught the suspect red handed sabotaging an anaesthetic machine. He was convicted.
https://news.sky.com/story/le-gavroche-michel-roux-jr-to-close-renowned-london-restaurant-for-better-work-life-balance-12942589