This whole HS2 debacle I think speaks to a wider worry that a lot have - that we simply can’t get anything big built anymore. And when we do, it takes ages and is fraught with politics
Governing by opinion poll - not because it was always the right thing to do - has led us to this ridiculous situation where the Tories are the face of decline
The expansion of judicial review well beyond the intention is part of the problem. Parliament passes an act. It’s done. It doesn’t need 10 years of appeals, counter appeals and reviews
The cost of HS2 is 10% iron and steel and earthworks, and 90% Britain’s now-suicidal planning regime.
Are people of the view that HS2 is the best use of government capital spending? Where will the money savings go instead?
Absolutely not.
But if you're going to do this damn thing, then do it properly.
Stop changing the specifications once they're agreed, stop NIMBY lawsuits or reviews getting in the way and once the specs are agreed just build it in full.
HS2 - like the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal project - has been crippling by interfering politicians who haven't a clue what they're doing but are far too arrogant and lacking in humility to listen. They then blame others when their mistakes lead to things going wrong, which were their own decisions and they were warned against, and sack those who happen to be standing when the music stops, who are normally trying hard to save something from the Ashes.
There's one rule in my line of work, which is: keep politicians as far as possible from the governance of megaprojects.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
It also needs someone unambiguously Conservative to do a version of That Kinnock speech. You all know the one, the one that goes
You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers.
There are so many relevant punchlines.
"Buying tunnelling machines, then burying them, unused."
"Telling people that children like temporary classrooms."
"Increasing taxes for people on the minimum wage."
But even if I thought the party would listen, who is there on the right with the brains, courage and self-respect to make such a speech?
I think the one interesting decision that Rishi Sunak has made is the increase in heat pump grant to £7500, which means that for quite a lot of normal sized houses that would now cover the whole cost.
He has not been clear about the numbers of grants available, however.
Yesterday you were rather rude about the King parental style. From today’s mail:
At the time, he [Harry] was offered the chance to stay in Balmoral with his father Charles on the anniversary of the Queen's death on September 7 but said his busy itinerary made it impossible.
I guess Harry doesn’t rank seeing his father that high in his list of priorities
No doubt there’s some fault on both sides - but good parents welcome their kids unconditionally.
The issue is that the King is quite busy - time has to be scheduled. Additionally Harry is not trusted - the fear is that private conversations will be leaked (may be not by Harry, but he will - reasonably - tell his wife and she is definitely not trusted) - while any photographs will be monetised.
The King’s duty comes above what he might want as a person
LOL the King is busy, what kind of idiot believes that , the arsehole swands about stuffing his fat face and pocketing as much of the public's money he can get his hands on. A day's work would unhinge him.
He must be super busy given the state pay for two people to get him dressed, iron his shoelaces and squeeze the toothpaste onto his brush.....not sure I have ever met anyone that busy that they require that level of time saving.
Come on, be fair to the poor man. The guy who squeezes his toothpaste also doubles up as the person who handles the binbags full of dodgy cash. How very economical, eh?
Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
He once had assistance when he had broken his shoulder and it needed to be completely immobilised for some months
He might well have had temporary assistance with squeezing the paste onto the brush, but Fawcett's duties were an ongoing thing, unrelated to that. Though, to be fair, he was merely required to squeeze toothpaste out of the tube of Colgate and into the custom monogrammed silver tube, ready for Charles' use.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the bags of cash stuff than the toothpaste, but maybe that's just me.
Are people of the view that HS2 is the best use of government capital spending? Where will the money savings go instead?
Absolutely not.
But if you're going to do this damn thing, then do it properly.
Stop changing the specifications once they're agreed, stop NIMBY lawsuits or reviews getting in the way and once the specs are agreed just build it in full.
HS2 - like the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal project - has been crippling by interfering politicians who haven't a clue what they're doing but are far too arrogant and lacking in humility to listen. They then blame others when their mistakes lead to things going wrong, which were their own decisions and they were warned against, and sack those who happen to be standing when the music stops, who are normally trying hard to save something from the Ashes.
There's one rule in my line of work, which is: keep politicians as far as possible from the governance of megaprojects.
Nowhere near.
I really do recommend that people read up on the American Space launch industry - it is a perfect example of how billions were (and are spent) to achieve less and less.
1) Layering - each project is outsourced to multiple levels - outsourced to some who outsources to someone who. This means that while profit at any one level is not enormous, it adds up to a huge proportion of the project. 2) This gives up a vast, unwieldy empire of participants. Which the politicians like, because it spreads the money like butter. Plus they can control the butter spreading. 3) Random changes are made that always raise costs. 4) From 2) some of the changes are to benefit designated participants. 5) Enquiries and legal interventions 1), 2) 3) and 4) help make this huge fun. Huge 6) Quality at any price as a war cry. This means that any attempt to reduce costs can be fought off as dangerous or stupid. The fact that the actual result is dangerous and stupid is irrelevant.
It's not about the nearness of the politicians. You really need to start at 1). Just hear the screaming when that happens.
There’s no £ left for HS2 but there are billions to cut IHT (?) which hardly anyone pays, & btw ban teens smoking, also more maths? The trouble with this sudden policy splurge is it feels so random. To what Q are these the answers?
It feels like Labour in 2019 when any random thought crossing Seamas Milne's mind became a policy commitment. I'm still half-convinced the man was a Tory plant. He even went to the same school as Rishi.
Many believe that he was a plant from someone...
"On the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, Milne wrote that "western aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out – removing any credible basis for the US and its allies to rail against Russian transgressions", and has described the annexation as "clearly defensive" "
Are people of the view that HS2 is the best use of government capital spending? Where will the money savings go instead?
Absolutely not.
But if you're going to do this damn thing, then do it properly.
Stop changing the specifications once they're agreed, stop NIMBY lawsuits or reviews getting in the way and once the specs are agreed just build it in full.
HS2 - like the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal project - has been crippling by interfering politicians who haven't a clue what they're doing but are far too arrogant and lacking in humility to listen. They then blame others when their mistakes lead to things going wrong, which were their own decisions and they were warned against, and sack those who happen to be standing when the music stops, who are normally trying hard to save something from the Ashes.
There's one rule in my line of work, which is: keep politicians as far as possible from the governance of megaprojects.
Nowhere near.
I really do recommend that people read up on the American Space launch industry - it is a perfect example of how billions were (and are spent) to achieve less and less.
1) Layering - each project is outsourced to multiple levels - outsourced to some who outsources to someone who. This means that while profit at any one level is not enormous, it adds up to a huge proportion of the project. 2) This gives up a vast, unwieldy empire of participants. Which the politicians like, because it spreads the money like butter. Plus they can control the butter spreading. 3) Random changes are made that always raise costs. 4) From 2) some of the changes are to benefit designated participants. 5) Enquiries and legal interventions 1), 2) 3) and 4) help make this huge fun. Huge 6) Quality at any price as a war cry. This means that any attempt to reduce costs can be fought off as dangerous or stupid. The fact that the actual result is dangerous and stupid is irrelevant.
It's not about the nearness of the politicians. You really need to start at 1). Just hear the screaming when that happens.
Which works until a disruptor, let’s call them Company X, comes along with a bit of private investment, and manages to replicate a large part of what the boondoggle above can do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
'Suella Braverman has ordered a review of armed policing after some Metropolitan Police officers stepped back from firearm duties when a marksman was charged with a murder.
The home secretary said officers have to make "split-second decisions" and must not fear "ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties".' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906193
Cruella keeps her 100% record for picking the dumbest possible response to any scenario
And showing how little she cares for contempt of court laws given that an officer has been charged. Perhaps someone might remind her of what happened to the newspapers commenting on Christopher Jefferies even before someone had been charged with murder of that poor girl.
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.
But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?
And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.
Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.
Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.
(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)
The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.
Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).
The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking
The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess
There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.
Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track
Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍
Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.
We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.
Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.
Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.
Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?
I didn't.
You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.
To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.
So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!
I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.
Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!
Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.
The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.
If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.
I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.
It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.
Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.
Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.
Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.
We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.
There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.
What do you want - a road each?
No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.
I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?
Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.
If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.
Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.
Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.
Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.
If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.
Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.
That's productivity growth. More with less.
And you're welcome 🥰
That depends.
On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.
On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.
Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.
Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?
Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.
Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.
But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.
Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.
I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.
Why not pop one alongside an existing road?
You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.
Where alongside an existing road?
Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.
But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?
It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.
Be smart and you can include public transport too.
Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.
The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!
The Elizabeth Line, Thames Tideway, T5 and the London Olympics were, are or are on course to all be very successful projects.
So you're suggesting investing in infrastructure works? I seem to be detecting a common thread in the geography of those projects.
Can you name the top infrastructure investment in the past decade or two in the North that have been successful projects?
Our population has grown by a quarter, our infrastructure has not kept up.
WCML was late and vastly over budget but eventually worked.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for Rishi to win seats at the next election by running a competent government really well and finding just 630 or so fantastically able, articulate and sane candidates to stand for election in each seat on an honest manifesto with figures, ideas, vision and plan?
What makes you think voters are interested in an honest manifesto?
Tediously, it is the politician’s job to lead and persuade. You and your ilk have forgotten that, which is why the country is fucked.
I have forgotten nothing and know more than you will ever know about anything.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.
The Tory Party has already been annihilated. This lot are UKIP Mk2 they just forgot to change the name.
Not in the slightest- there's very little right-wing about this government.
The best you could say is that they're a gerontocracy.
'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.
Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"' https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/
Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.
Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now
And, as has been said before, winning back Reform UK voters gets the Tories a slightly less bad defeat. If they have any chance of winning a general election, they need to win back people now intending to vote Labour and LibDem.
The Tories have virtually no chance of winning the next general election, whatever Sunak does after 13 years in power swing voters are going Labour or LD now. The Tories just need to focus on narrowing the margin of defeat to rebuild in opposition when Labour will have to deal with the economy.
An inheritance tax cut is popular in polling with most voters anyway and those opposed to delaying the ban on new petrol cars and ban on oil boilers would almost all never vote Tory anyway
Why not narrow the margin of defeat by going for the larger pools of ex-Conservative supporters who are now contemplating voting Lab or LD, rather than the smaller pool of ex-Conservative supporters who are now in the Reform UK column?
As Sunak almost certainly wouldn't win back voters now going Lab or LD but would still fail to win back voters going RefUK or DK.
After 13 years in power Tories also want some rightwing red meat if they are likely going to lose power anyway, much as Brown raised the top income tax rate to 50%, passed the Equality Act 2009 etc as red meat for the left in the final years of the last Labour government
I don’t see any particular reason for your pessimism. I don’t see any inherent reason why the Tories couldn’t try to win back voters lost to Lab/LD, or why trying to win back Reform UK voters is necessarily easier.
If the Conservatives choose to target the further right and neglect the centre-right/centrists, they will deserve the kicking the electorate will give them.
The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.
Well, that's right.
If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.
It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for Rishi to win seats at the next election by running a competent government really well and finding just 630 or so fantastically able, articulate and sane candidates to stand for election in each seat on an honest manifesto with figures, ideas, vision and plan?
What makes you think voters are interested in an honest manifesto?
Tediously, it is the politician’s job to lead and persuade. You and your ilk have forgotten that, which is why the country is fucked.
I have forgotten nothing and know more than you will ever know about anything.
Au contraire, it is you who - like the Bourbons - have forgot nothing and learning nothing.
You are rapidly descending towards HYUFD-level fanaticism, just without his politesse.
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Point one is that taxation is not "confiscating assets". Growth in housing values is unearned wealth being accumulated and I would say it is reasonable to tax it.
I think the "taking XYZ out of the tax system" is years past its sell-by date, and we need a broadening of the tax base, and a depending at the higher end - especially targeting gaps and loopholes such as the "tax free gift out of normal income" loophole, which gives tax free income / wealth transfer from wealthier people to their children. Also Trusts.
I'd radically broaden Inheritance Tax to a majority of estates, starting at very modest rates, and make it payable by the receiving party not the Estate. There's perhaps a case to make it payable at the marginal rate of income tax for that party, to encourage wider distribution.
It’s probably heresy to say, but I think there’s a case for increasing the pensioner’s tax burden. As an OAP with several pensions, plus a wife with the same, I’m probably better of than I’ve ever been, although the fact that I now need carer support eats into things a bit, although I do, of course, get assistance with that.
OKC, all well and good but many many pensioners do not have several pensions. What taxes do you not pay currently or are you wanting a special pensioner only tax on top of them paying all the taxes other people pay. PS for the supposedly "young whining " anyway greedy hyenas , not many pensioners work and have paid their lifes share of NI even if they do.
I suspect he means NI. Pensioners don't get any preferential treatment vis a vis income tax.
Exactly and majority of pensioners are not working or doing an odd couple of days at best so the NI gathered would be peanuts in any event.
NI is just another form of Income Tax. It should apply in full to all income which Income Tax applies to.
Comments
There's one rule in my line of work, which is: keep politicians as far as possible from the governance of megaprojects.
Nowhere near.
You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers.
There are so many relevant punchlines.
"Buying tunnelling machines, then burying them, unused."
"Telling people that children like temporary classrooms."
"Increasing taxes for people on the minimum wage."
But even if I thought the party would listen, who is there on the right with the brains, courage and self-respect to make such a speech?
He has not been clear about the numbers of grants available, however.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the bags of cash stuff than the toothpaste, but maybe that's just me.
1) Layering - each project is outsourced to multiple levels - outsourced to some who outsources to someone who. This means that while profit at any one level is not enormous, it adds up to a huge proportion of the project.
2) This gives up a vast, unwieldy empire of participants. Which the politicians like, because it spreads the money like butter. Plus they can control the butter spreading.
3) Random changes are made that always raise costs.
4) From 2) some of the changes are to benefit designated participants.
5) Enquiries and legal interventions 1), 2) 3) and 4) help make this huge fun. Huge
6) Quality at any price as a war cry. This means that any attempt to reduce costs can be fought off as dangerous or stupid. The fact that the actual result is dangerous and stupid is irrelevant.
It's not about the nearness of the politicians. You really need to start at 1). Just hear the screaming when that happens.
"On the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, Milne wrote that "western aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out – removing any credible basis for the US and its allies to rail against Russian transgressions", and has described the annexation as "clearly defensive" "
The line up to Manchester used to be dire.
If the Conservatives choose to target the further right and neglect the centre-right/centrists, they will deserve the kicking the electorate will give them.
You are rapidly descending towards HYUFD-level fanaticism, just without his politesse.
Stay off the turps.