Peter Hitchens dogged in his defence of Shamima Begum
I am impressed by the number of goody-goody saints , police cadets and Head Girls on Twitter, who never did anything bad in their teens, and who do not regret or seek forgiveness for their actions. My guess is that a lot of them have yet to wake up to what they were really like
I do not recall any especially fruity war crimes, or participating in a literal self proclaimed* recreational genocide.
*ISIS stated that they were going to wipe out the Yazidis.
Maybe I was boring as a teenager?
I did go to school with a guy who was arrested for terrorism offences after joining the oooh arrrgh A
I spent my late teens arguing with the Death To The West types at Uni. This was in the 90s in London, and quite a few of them weren’t doing it as a student pose. Londonistan and all that.
After they got over the shock of “Death To The East” as a counter conversational gambit, some of them were quite entertaining, in a rabid, unwashed kind of way.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
Laffer curve advocates: "I have no idea where the peak is but am confidently going to state we are to the right of it."
On the contrary, I think what Laffer and those who find the curve a helpful concept would like is a basic understanding that you can't gaily hack away at the goose laying the golden egg and expect it to keep laying.
And I would like the people gaily slavering for tax cuts to understand that we cannot run the public services in this country on borrowing and so-called 'efficiency savings'.
A lot of those slavering for tax cuts as you call it are people who are looking at their pay and realising if they didn't pay so much tax for so little return they might not have to skip meals or be able to keep the heating on when its cold. Most on pb would still be comfortable if their tax was increased....the average person in the street not so much. We keep hearing from people like yourself about people like nurses having to use food banks as they can't make ends meet.....you seem to have a disconnect between that and wanting them to be taxed more so they have even less to spend
100% agree.
I most certainly do not want to see people on, say, the 20% tax band being taxed more.
I think those earning £150k+ could generally afford a bit more but I do recognise the psychological point that others have pointed out tonight where >50% tax rates become unacceptable.
I would reduce employee NI by 2% and increase the basic ICT rate by 1% each year for six years, by which point the average workers would be paying 26% (instead of 32%) on their income over the £12.5k personal allowance (which I would index link).
Pensioners such as myself would be paying 26% too, instead of the 20% we currently get away with.
I can't easily calculate the net effect of the Benpointer tax reforms would be on government coffers - broadly neutral, I suspect. But my not so stealthy Wealthy Tax will make up any shortfall and gain enough surplus to quickly start paying down the record national debt.
I could certainly get behind the reduction on ni while increasing ict
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
Laffer curve advocates: "I have no idea where the peak is but am confidently going to state we are to the right of it."
On the contrary, I think what Laffer and those who find the curve a helpful concept would like is a basic understanding that you can't gaily hack away at the goose laying the golden egg and expect it to keep laying.
And I would like the people gaily slavering for tax cuts to understand that we cannot run the public services in this country on borrowing and so-called 'efficiency savings'.
We are talking about taxes, and the state, being trimmed to their 2000s levels. We did not have any lack of public order, public services, or indeed of bureaucrats and quangos back then. Conversely I think most would say that things ran somewhat better rather than worse.
We had an age dependency ratio very different from now. We simply have way more old people in need of pensions, health and social care than we did then.
Blair had an extremely favourable demographic tailwind during his time in office.
And yet the marginal tax rate of someone who is earning a pension of £90k per annum is less than the marginal tax of a newly qualified teacher on £30k per annum.
That's not demographics, that's politics.
Oh absolutely. It’s in the totality of tax take and spending where we need to make sure we’re comparing apples with apples.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
Laffer curve advocates: "I have no idea where the peak is but am confidently going to state we are to the right of it."
On the contrary, I think what Laffer and those who find the curve a helpful concept would like is a basic understanding that you can't gaily hack away at the goose laying the golden egg and expect it to keep laying.
And I would like the people gaily slavering for tax cuts to understand that we cannot run the public services in this country on borrowing and so-called 'efficiency savings'.
A lot of those slavering for tax cuts as you call it are people who are looking at their pay and realising if they didn't pay so much tax for so little return they might not have to skip meals or be able to keep the heating on when its cold. Most on pb would still be comfortable if their tax was increased....the average person in the street not so much. We keep hearing from people like yourself about people like nurses having to use food banks as they can't make ends meet.....you seem to have a disconnect between that and wanting them to be taxed more so they have even less to spend
100% agree.
I most certainly do not want to see people on, say, the 20% tax band being taxed more.
I think those earning £150k+ could generally afford a bit more but I do recognise the psychological point that others have pointed out tonight where >50% tax rates become unacceptable.
I would reduce employee NI by 2% and increase the basic ICT rate by 1% each year for six years, by which point the average workers would be paying 26% (instead of 32%) on their income over the £12.5k personal allowance (which I would index link).
Pensioners such as myself would be paying 26% too, instead of the 20% we currently get away with.
I can't easily calculate the net effect of the Benpointer tax reforms would be on government coffers - broadly neutral, I suspect. But my not so stealthy Wealthy Tax will make up any shortfall and gain enough surplus to quickly start paying down the record national debt.
I would vote for that.
Its worth noting too that your reforms are a pro-Laffer reform too. Reducing taxes on those working for a living will make people work more, which is good for the economy.
Increasing taxes on those who are not working for their income may cost votes, but won't have a negative impact on the economy.
The only reason we tax pensioners less than workers is politics, not economics. If economics ruled the roost, it would be the inverse.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
Some good ideas, a couple of issues:
The challenge regarding State Pension is that we've told people for years that their NI contributions were (at least in part) building up that pension. So to remove it for those too wealthy would be rather unfair, given that many will have taken the SP into account for their retirement planning.
The other major welfare benefit which is not means tested (or even taxed) is disability benefits (PIP, DLA or Attendance Allowance). Personally, I think they should have been means tested from the outset but it's a very brave government that will face the media backlash invoked by 'taking away disability benefits' now.
Means testing itself is not difficult - it's routinely done for all UC claimants of course. The rules are very clear the processes well- proven.
Actually what we have told them officially (as opposed to politicians telling people what they want to hear) is that the NI contributions they make are to pay for today's pensions and that the workers of tomorrow will be paying for our pensions when we retire. This was made explicit when the system was introduced by the Attlee Government in the 1940s. People like to think they are paying in much as we pay into a bank as 'savings' or into a private pension but that is not the case. We need to be honest about this.
But of course it needs a Government that is not beholden to the pensioner vote for survival. And I say that as someone in my late 50s who will be part of that bloc in a decade or so.
One other idea we could introduce very simply. Extend NI to all employment rather than exempting those working past retirement age.
Or even simpler, extend NI to all earnings rather than just employment.
Why should someone on a gold-plated pension not pay NI on their income, but someone working for a living does?
Treat all earnings the same, no matter how they're earned.
Yep. I think that is reasonable, indeed necessary. Although in effect at that point it is probably simpler just to merge the two into proper 'income' tax.
Peter Hitchens dogged in his defence of Shamima Begum
I am impressed by the number of goody-goody saints , police cadets and Head Girls on Twitter, who never did anything bad in their teens, and who do not regret or seek forgiveness for their actions. My guess is that a lot of them have yet to wake up to what they were really like
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
Laffer curve advocates: "I have no idea where the peak is but am confidently going to state we are to the right of it."
On the contrary, I think what Laffer and those who find the curve a helpful concept would like is a basic understanding that you can't gaily hack away at the goose laying the golden egg and expect it to keep laying.
And I would like the people gaily slavering for tax cuts to understand that we cannot run the public services in this country on borrowing and so-called 'efficiency savings'.
A lot of those slavering for tax cuts as you call it are people who are looking at their pay and realising if they didn't pay so much tax for so little return they might not have to skip meals or be able to keep the heating on when its cold. Most on pb would still be comfortable if their tax was increased....the average person in the street not so much. We keep hearing from people like yourself about people like nurses having to use food banks as they can't make ends meet.....you seem to have a disconnect between that and wanting them to be taxed more so they have even less to spend
100% agree.
I most certainly do not want to see people on, say, the 20% tax band being taxed more.
I think those earning £150k+ could generally afford a bit more but I do recognise the psychological point that others have pointed out tonight where >50% tax rates become unacceptable.
I would reduce employee NI by 2% and increase the basic ICT rate by 1% each year for six years, by which point the average workers would be paying 26% (instead of 32%) on their income over the £12.5k personal allowance (which I would index link).
Pensioners such as myself would be paying 26% too, instead of the 20% we currently get away with.
I can't easily calculate the net effect of the Benpointer tax reforms would be on government coffers - broadly neutral, I suspect. But my not so stealthy Wealthy Tax will make up any shortfall and gain enough surplus to quickly start paying down the record national debt.
I could certainly get behind the reduction on ni while increasing ict
Following the theories of Laffer if you wanted to purely maximise the tax take then you'd have NI as negative, with a considerably higher ICT.
IE tax unearned incomes the most, but tax workers less, so people continue to work but those who aren't working for their income (so can't avoid work to avoid the tax) are plucked for tax.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Peter Hitchens dogged in his defence of Shamima Begum
I am impressed by the number of goody-goody saints , police cadets and Head Girls on Twitter, who never did anything bad in their teens, and who do not regret or seek forgiveness for their actions. My guess is that a lot of them have yet to wake up to what they were really like
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
Some good ideas, a couple of issues:
The challenge regarding State Pension is that we've told people for years that their NI contributions were (at least in part) building up that pension. So to remove it for those too wealthy would be rather unfair, given that many will have taken the SP into account for their retirement planning.
The other major welfare benefit which is not means tested (or even taxed) is disability benefits (PIP, DLA or Attendance Allowance). Personally, I think they should have been means tested from the outset but it's a very brave government that will face the media backlash invoked by 'taking away disability benefits' now.
Means testing itself is not difficult - it's routinely done for all UC claimants of course. The rules are very clear the processes well- proven.
Actually what we have told them officially (as opposed to politicians telling people what they want to hear) is that the NI contributions they make are to pay for today's pensions and that the workers of tomorrow will be paying for our pensions when we retire. This was made explicit when the system was introduced by the Attlee Government in the 1940s. People like to think they are paying in much as we pay into a bank as 'savings' or into a private pension but that is not the case. We need to be honest about this.
But of course it needs a Government that is not beholden to the pensioner vote for survival. And I say that as someone in my late 50s who will be part of that bloc in a decade or so.
One other idea we could introduce very simply. Extend NI to all employment rather than exempting those working past retirement age.
Or even simpler, extend NI to all earnings rather than just employment.
Why should someone on a gold-plated pension not pay NI on their income, but someone working for a living does?
Treat all earnings the same, no matter how they're earned.
Yep. I think that is reasonable, indeed necessary. Although in effect at that point it is probably simpler just to merge the two into proper 'income' tax.
Yes, something that is well worth doing.
If Keir Starmer wins a landslide and wants to be "brave" that should be done in his first term in office.
Yes those who lose from the reform will squeal, but it would also generate taxes without increasing the burden any further on people working for a living.
Polls currently imply a record 15½-point swing to Labour. But where is this swing coming from and can it be undone?
The largest component is Tory defections to Labour (around a third of the swing), but losses to Reform and Don't Know/Not Voting are also big parts of the story.
Problem: Only around a 4-pt swing is needed for the Conservatives to lose their majority. Labour have likely attained this purely through natural turnover (deaths/new voters) and gains from other parties/non voters. Tories could gain back every voter they’ve lost and still lose.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
A neat point. However the Islamist one shouldn't be dismissed. As we saw last week fear of them now affects how Parliament behaves.
My wife is a commercial model with an active Instagram account (several thousand followers). Blue tick verification.
Or she was until last night. Instagram took down her account permanently because of “account authenticity”. No appeals permitted - all her contacts and business dialogue vaporised.
Apparently the only way to address is to find a human at Instagram who is willing to make a request for a manual review by their team. Anyone have any contacts? Or any better suggestions?
Try posting on LinkedIn. That's where most of the faang people I encounter hang out.
A very quick search on LinkedIn uncovers one Stephanie Jell, Head of Communications, U.K., Ireland and the Nordics at Instagram
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 5h 🔴 Labour NEC member Ann Black has apparently told the WhatsApp group for secretaries of constituency parties that almost all the selections for remaining seats will be appointed by NEC panels, without a role for local members.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
Laffer curve advocates: "I have no idea where the peak is but am confidently going to state we are to the right of it."
On the contrary, I think what Laffer and those who find the curve a helpful concept would like is a basic understanding that you can't gaily hack away at the goose laying the golden egg and expect it to keep laying.
And I would like the people gaily slavering for tax cuts to understand that we cannot run the public services in this country on borrowing and so-called 'efficiency savings'.
We are talking about taxes, and the state, being trimmed to their 2000s levels. We did not have any lack of public order, public services, or indeed of bureaucrats and quangos back then. Conversely I think most would say that things ran somewhat better rather than worse.
We had an age dependency ratio very different from now. We simply have way more old people in need of pensions, health and social care than we did then.
Blair had an extremely favourable demographic tailwind during his time in office.
The increases in state headcount and spend are not solely or arguably even largely attributable to added care workers or state pension payments.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
Laffer curve advocates: "I have no idea where the peak is but am confidently going to state we are to the right of it."
On the contrary, I think what Laffer and those who find the curve a helpful concept would like is a basic understanding that you can't gaily hack away at the goose laying the golden egg and expect it to keep laying.
And I would like the people gaily slavering for tax cuts to understand that we cannot run the public services in this country on borrowing and so-called 'efficiency savings'.
A lot of those slavering for tax cuts as you call it are people who are looking at their pay and realising if they didn't pay so much tax for so little return they might not have to skip meals or be able to keep the heating on when its cold. Most on pb would still be comfortable if their tax was increased....the average person in the street not so much. We keep hearing from people like yourself about people like nurses having to use food banks as they can't make ends meet.....you seem to have a disconnect between that and wanting them to be taxed more so they have even less to spend
100% agree.
I most certainly do not want to see people on, say, the 20% tax band being taxed more.
I think those earning £150k+ could generally afford a bit more but I do recognise the psychological point that others have pointed out tonight where >50% tax rates become unacceptable.
I would reduce employee NI by 2% and increase the basic ICT rate by 1% each year for six years, by which point the average workers would be paying 26% (instead of 32%) on their income over the £12.5k personal allowance (which I would index link).
Pensioners such as myself would be paying 26% too, instead of the 20% we currently get away with.
I can't easily calculate the net effect of the Benpointer tax reforms would be on government coffers - broadly neutral, I suspect. But my not so stealthy Wealthy Tax will make up any shortfall and gain enough surplus to quickly start paying down the record national debt.
I could certainly get behind the reduction on ni while increasing ict
Following the theories of Laffer if you wanted to purely maximise the tax take then you'd have NI as negative, with a considerably higher ICT.
IE tax unearned incomes the most, but tax workers less, so people continue to work but those who aren't working for their income (so can't avoid work to avoid the tax) are plucked for tax.
Didn't Heath try an Investment Income surcharge of 15% in the 1970s?
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 5h 🔴 Labour NEC member Ann Black has apparently told the WhatsApp group for secretaries of constituency parties that almost all the selections for remaining seats will be appointed by NEC panels, without a role for local members.
Which seats have yet to choose a candidate, and why?
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
No, that's economics.
Economics does vary between economy, period and taxes.
Anyone who thinks it doesn't, doesn't know the slightest damned thing about economics.
You sound like the economic version of a religious fundamentalist.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
Some good ideas, a couple of issues:
The challenge regarding State Pension is that we've told people for years that their NI contributions were (at least in part) building up that pension. So to remove it for those too wealthy would be rather unfair, given that many will have taken the SP into account for their retirement planning.
The other major welfare benefit which is not means tested (or even taxed) is disability benefits (PIP, DLA or Attendance Allowance). Personally, I think they should have been means tested from the outset but it's a very brave government that will face the media backlash invoked by 'taking away disability benefits' now.
Means testing itself is not difficult - it's routinely done for all UC claimants of course. The rules are very clear the processes well- proven.
Actually what we have told them officially (as opposed to politicians telling people what they want to hear) is that the NI contributions they make are to pay for today's pensions and that the workers of tomorrow will be paying for our pensions when we retire. This was made explicit when the system was introduced by the Attlee Government in the 1940s. People like to think they are paying in much as we pay into a bank as 'savings' or into a private pension but that is not the case. We need to be honest about this.
But of course it needs a Government that is not beholden to the pensioner vote for survival. And I say that as someone in my late 50s who will be part of that bloc in a decade or so.
One other idea we could introduce very simply. Extend NI to all employment rather than exempting those working past retirement age.
Or even simpler, extend NI to all earnings rather than just employment.
Why should someone on a gold-plated pension not pay NI on their income, but someone working for a living does?
Treat all earnings the same, no matter how they're earned.
Yep. I think that is reasonable, indeed necessary. Although in effect at that point it is probably simpler just to merge the two into proper 'income' tax.
Yes, something that is well worth doing.
If Keir Starmer wins a landslide and wants to be "brave" that should be done in his first term in office.
Yes those who lose from the reform will squeal, but it would also generate taxes without increasing the burden any further on people working for a living.
Starmer doesn't strike me as brave though.
I hope you're wrong but I'm not going to suggest Starmer 'may surprise you on the upside' - I've seen where that kind of talk leads.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Anyone who thinks it exists is more deluded. A curve implies some predictable formula for calculating an optimal tax rate. That is evidently - across multiple economies and throughout history - utter bollocks.
“Somewhere there’s a sweet spot” ? Where ? And how do you predict it ? And for which tax ? (hint, that varies too).
Just nonsense.
The existence of the curve does not require there to be a simplistic one size fits all equation to prove its veracity. To suggest that there must be one and supporters of the concept must produce it is to construct a very silly straw man.
So what you’re saying is that there’s a concept which you don’t understand, and can’t use to predict anything about optimum tax rates, and which is probably different for each different economy, historical period, and particular tax…
But nevertheless you’re confident in asserting its existence ?
You’ve moved from economics to abstract philosophy.
No, that's economics.
Economics does vary between economy, period and taxes.
Anyone who thinks it doesn't, doesn't know the slightest damned thing about economics.
You sound like the economic version of a religious fundamentalist.
Why?
I'm saying the opposite.
A religious fundamentalist loves to have a simple, clear, precise agenda to follow that says "this is the word of God" (Thor, Allah, Yahweh, whatever) and that this "divine truth" is the way it is and must be.
I'm saying its messy and complex, with multiple real world dependencies and interactions, and so we can't be certain.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
And that's why they are set to lose.
Whilst I expect them to cling to office as long as decent and then a bit, power (and its resulting responsibility ) now exhausts and scares them.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
A neat point. However the Islamist one shouldn't be dismissed. As we saw last week fear of them now affects how Parliament behaves.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
Peter Hitchens dogged in his defence of Shamima Begum
I am impressed by the number of goody-goody saints , police cadets and Head Girls on Twitter, who never did anything bad in their teens, and who do not regret or seek forgiveness for their actions. My guess is that a lot of them have yet to wake up to what they were really like
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
A neat point. However the Islamist one shouldn't be dismissed. As we saw last week fear of them now affects how Parliament behaves.
I don't doubt that. But that musn't mean we avoid talking about the Islamist issue. As Portillo made clear the media reports on how MPs are being given police protection because of 'intimidation'. Intimidation from who FFS!. It's is inconceivable that if it was Tommy ********* and his goons they wouldn't say so.
Taxation response is really interesting stuff - the four-day week an obvious example. In Scotland we have the prospect of people moving south because of higher tax rates, but free uni education is worth £36,000 per kid for middle class parents.
And humans aren't robots. I imagine the curve moves around quite a bit depending on the quality of public services and the sense of a social contract. For truly public goods like the public realm, the armed forces, police and the courts and so on, I would guess people would be happier to pay more tax.
My home town has a truly stunning park, woodlands, town hall, historical schools, churches, all paid for by the local landed gentry. How is that sentiment represented in an estimate of a curve?
Anneliese Dodds @AnnelieseDodds · 7h Why are senior Conservatives finding it so hard to call out Islamophobia?
Perhaps because the Conservatives still refuse to adopt the definition used by every other major political party in Britain.
Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch We use the term “Anti-Muslim hatred”. It makes clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom AND the freedom to criticise religion.
The definition of “Islamophobia” she uses creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted.
Apparently the Tory membership is very upset over Anderson’s suspension . I think this sums up why they should never be allowed anywhere near picking the Tory leader .
Actually, it shows how well Anderson is playing the role. He is there to keep the core Conservative vote from slipping any further toward Reform. In truth, he says what CCHQ think the silenced majority are thinking and again, CCHQ probably think there's a lot of support for Anderson but which dare not speak its name.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
Because he is an idiot. Are you denying that fear of Islamists was behind the unusual goings on in parliament last week ?
Apparently the Tory membership is very upset over Anderson’s suspension . I think this sums up why they should never be allowed anywhere near picking the Tory leader .
Actually, it shows how well Anderson is playing the role. He is there to keep the core Conservative vote from slipping any further toward Reform. In truth, he says what CCHQ think the silenced majority are thinking and again, CCHQ probably think there's a lot of support for Anderson but which dare not speak its name.
Errr, won't they just head to Reform given the Tories have suspended him?
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
The staff are probably Zionists or Islamists and therefore deserve “peaceful protests*”
*Peaceful protests may include no peace. We hate the very word. Bit like Montagues. Peaceful protests may include nuts. PP may includes nutters. The value of your PP may go down as well as up. All wrongs reserved.
Oh bloody hell, Malmesbury, that humour's a bit grim for a Sunday evening!
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
Because he is an idiot. Are you denying that fear of Islamists was behind the unusual goings on in parliament last week ?
It probably was a factor, yes, and there are genuine concerns I'm sure, but there are also genuine concerns that the governing party seems to be absolutely bursting with anti Muslim bigotry, and unable to confront it because (a) they don't even seem able to recognise it as bigotry and (b) they're desperate for anti Muslim bigots to vote for them. Other people have made this point, but it seems to me that since Brexit the Tories have really been pursuing an "enemy within" narrative that is quite dangerous and repulsive.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
That’s why his comments looked so ludicrous. The Islamist threat, such as it exists in the UK (and it’s far less of a threat than in erstwhile secular Muslim majority countries) is one of law breaking, violence and intimidation. Similar to the sectarian threat during the troubles, the Basque separatist threat in Spain in the 80s and 90s or the far right threat in various places.
It’s not something that threatens to capture the levers of power akin to say the Mafia in Italy, Evangelicals in the US Supreme Court or indeed Islamism itself in Turkey.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Totally right. I never understood why councils were so short sighted in this. I also think that the idea of residents in council housing getting to buy then at reduced rates is a double present. Council houses now are extremely hard to get, and all to often there is a perception that they go to certain types of people. That may or may not be reality, but it’s what a lot of people think.
Taxation response is really interesting stuff - the four-day week an obvious example. In Scotland we have the prospect of people moving south because of higher tax rates, but free uni education is worth £36,000 per kid for middle class parents.
And humans aren't robots. I imagine the curve moves around quite a bit depending on the quality of public services and the sense of a social contract. For truly public goods like the public realm, the armed forces, police and the courts and so on, I would guess people would be happier to pay more tax.
My home town has a truly stunning park, woodlands, town hall, historical schools, churches, all paid for by the local landed gentry. How is that sentiment represented in an estimate of a curve?
People are prepared to pay more tax as long as it is not them. ?
MAGA Republican Pledges “End of Democracy” to Rabid Cheers at CPAC
Republicans at CPAC 2024 are openly vowing to take down democracy.
Conservative activist Jack Posobiec joyfully hailed the “end of democracy” at the Conservative Political Action Conference, further emphasizing Republicans’ apparent desire to completely overthrow America as we know it.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Totally right. I never understood why councils were so short sighted in this. I also think that the idea of residents in council housing getting to buy then at reduced rates is a double present. Council houses now are extremely hard to get, and all to often there is a perception that they go to certain types of people. That may or may not be reality, but it’s what a lot of people think.
Didn't Thatcher stop local councils from using the money from sales from being recycled to build new council houses?
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Totally right. I never understood why councils were so short sighted in this. I also think that the idea of residents in council housing getting to buy then at reduced rates is a double present. Council houses now are extremely hard to get, and all to often there is a perception that they go to certain types of people. That may or may not be reality, but it’s what a lot of people think.
Not the councils being shortsighted but HMG imposing rules. Things changed over time but AIUI the councils
(a) didn't get all the money from sales (b) weren't allowed to spend what they did get on new council houses, much ofd the time
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
Because he is an idiot. Are you denying that fear of Islamists was behind the unusual goings on in parliament last week ?
It probably was a factor, yes, and there are genuine concerns I'm sure, but there are also genuine concerns that the governing party seems to be absolutely bursting with anti Muslim bigotry, and unable to confront it because (a) they don't even seem able to recognise it as bigotry and (b) they're desperate for anti Muslim bigots to vote for them. Other people have made this point, but it seems to me that since Brexit the Tories have really been pursuing an "enemy within" narrative that is quite dangerous and repulsive.
Cobblers. The reason Anderson gets support for his (inaccurate) comments is because the entire party leadership is unprepared to call the problem by it's name. As for Brexit how do you explain what is going on in the rest of Europe where they are waking up to this. We need to accept that the problem is deep rotted within Islamic culture but does not apply to all strands of Islamic thinking or Muslims in general.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
A neat point. However the Islamist one shouldn't be dismissed. As we saw last week fear of them now affects how Parliament behaves.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
If only Liz had another day or two. Then we'd be looking at three million new houses at least. Maybe a million.
Sadly, she was under a desk sheltering from the blob while sacking her Chancellor.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Council/social or *any* house?
Total as far as I know
Thanks. That "40 years" was obviously very carefully picked. The impactd of the Thatcherite legislation is very clear - not the buying of council houses by tenants bvut the brakes on recycling the money to build new council houses.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
Because he is an idiot. Are you denying that fear of Islamists was behind the unusual goings on in parliament last week ?
It probably was a factor, yes, and there are genuine concerns I'm sure, but there are also genuine concerns that the governing party seems to be absolutely bursting with anti Muslim bigotry, and unable to confront it because (a) they don't even seem able to recognise it as bigotry and (b) they're desperate for anti Muslim bigots to vote for them. Other people have made this point, but it seems to me that since Brexit the Tories have really been pursuing an "enemy within" narrative that is quite dangerous and repulsive.
Cobblers. The reason Anderson gets support for his (inaccurate) comments is because the entire party leadership is unprepared to call the problem by it's name. As for Brexit how do you explain what is going on in the rest of Europe where they are waking up to this. We need to accept that the problem is deep rotted within Islamic culture but does not apply to all strands of Islamic thinking or Muslims in general.
It's this kind of denial of the deep rot of anti Muslim prejudice in the Tory that explains why the problem in the party is only growing more deep rooted. They have a problem similar to Labour's struggles with antisemitism under Corbyn. Sunak really needs to get a grip on this issue, but can't because he's too weak.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
.. So if you spent 10 grand building a council house in 1955, the were compelled to sell it off for 15 grand 30 years later, then were legally prevented from building a new house to replace it using that 15 grand and instead had to use it to subsidise the cuts in council funding... You don't see that as government f*cking things up?
I don't especially care left or right, but broadly it seems dogmatic to me. Dogmatic and basically 'local government can go f*ck itself, we know best".
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
Let us see some statistics then.
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
Telegraph reports that the Tories are receiving a backlash from throwing out Lee.
Doesn't matter what he's said, only their electoral prospects. Morally bankrupt the lot of them.
That is not a fair statement. Receiving a backlash for doing the right thing? How does that make them morally bankrupt?
Did you read the article? MPs are saying he should be reinstated because he “talks for millions of voters”. That’s not about morals, that’s about winning. Sunak did the right thing, it’s his MPs I am saying don’t have a backbone.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
Because he is an idiot. Are you denying that fear of Islamists was behind the unusual goings on in parliament last week ?
It probably was a factor, yes, and there are genuine concerns I'm sure, but there are also genuine concerns that the governing party seems to be absolutely bursting with anti Muslim bigotry, and unable to confront it because (a) they don't even seem able to recognise it as bigotry and (b) they're desperate for anti Muslim bigots to vote for them. Other people have made this point, but it seems to me that since Brexit the Tories have really been pursuing an "enemy within" narrative that is quite dangerous and repulsive.
Cobblers. The reason Anderson gets support for his (inaccurate) comments is because the entire party leadership is unprepared to call the problem by it's name. As for Brexit how do you explain what is going on in the rest of Europe where they are waking up to this. We need to accept that the problem is deep rotted within Islamic culture but does not apply to all strands of Islamic thinking or Muslims in general.
It's this kind of denial of the deep rot of anti Muslim prejudice in the Tory that explains why the problem in the party is only growing more deep rooted. They have a problem similar to Labour's struggles with antisemitism under Corbyn. Sunak really needs to get a grip on this issue, but can't because he's too weak.
I don't know what you mean by denial. I've no idea what the extent of anti Muslim feeling is inside the Conservative party, I'm not and never have been a voter or member. But previous Tory leaders have bent over backwards to avoid upsetting Muslims. Remember David Cameron's laughable claim that the BBC should stop calling ISIS Islamic State and that it had nothing to do with Islam. There has been no Tory leader equivalent of Corbyn thus far.
Labour actually has the space to fix the planning system if they want to.
It is crazy that people can object to having stuff installed because they don’t like how it looks. Screw that.
Just last week a new mast was rejected in my patch for “visual intrusion”. It’s in London, 400m away from a council estate and 400m away from another mast…
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
Let us see some statistics then.
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
You look it up yourself. I'm off to have a bath.
We're talking about 1980 on and suddenly you pile in and want to restrict it to 2000 on. No, that's not going to do.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
Because he is an idiot. Are you denying that fear of Islamists was behind the unusual goings on in parliament last week ?
It probably was a factor, yes, and there are genuine concerns I'm sure, but there are also genuine concerns that the governing party seems to be absolutely bursting with anti Muslim bigotry, and unable to confront it because (a) they don't even seem able to recognise it as bigotry and (b) they're desperate for anti Muslim bigots to vote for them. Other people have made this point, but it seems to me that since Brexit the Tories have really been pursuing an "enemy within" narrative that is quite dangerous and repulsive.
Cobblers. The reason Anderson gets support for his (inaccurate) comments is because the entire party leadership is unprepared to call the problem by it's name. As for Brexit how do you explain what is going on in the rest of Europe where they are waking up to this. We need to accept that the problem is deep rotted within Islamic culture but does not apply to all strands of Islamic thinking or Muslims in general.
It's this kind of denial of the deep rot of anti Muslim prejudice in the Tory that explains why the problem in the party is only growing more deep rooted. They have a problem similar to Labour's struggles with antisemitism under Corbyn. Sunak really needs to get a grip on this issue, but can't because he's too weak.
I don't know what you mean by denial. I've no idea what the extent of anti Muslim feeling is inside the Conservative party, I'm not and never have been a voter or member. But previous Tory leaders have bent over backwards to avoid upsetting Muslims. Remember David Cameron's laughable claim that the BBC should stop calling ISIS Islamic State and that it had nothing to do with Islam. There has been no Tory leader equivalent of Corbyn thus far.
Sounds very similar to what people said about Corbyn.
Labour actually has the space to fix the planning system if they want to.
It is crazy that people can object to having stuff installed because they don’t like how it looks. Screw that.
Just last week a new mast was rejected in my patch for “visual intrusion”. It’s in London, 400m away from a council estate and 400m away from another mast…
They do.
I won't hold my breath that they will, but if they do, they will both deserve and get my vote.
This is the right thing to do, that trumps party politics.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
Let us see some statistics then.
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
You look it up yourself. I'm off to have a bath.
We're talking about 1980 on and suddenly you pile in and want to restrict it to 2000 on. No, that's not going to do.
No, we're not, because 1980-2000 our population level was stable and our housing level kept up with our population level.
That's why in the 1990s there was no housing shortage or crisis.
The shortage did not begin in the 80s, or the 90s. It began in the 00s when construction and population growth failed to be in sync with each other. It has continued all century since.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
Wouldn't work. It would fragment building even more and use the skilled bricklayers (of which there are too few) even more inefficiently. I don't like it, as the other option is to rely on the big housebuilders, but the conflict is there.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Yes, but part of the reason construction hasn't kept up is that right-to-buy was structured in a way that meant councils no longer acted as a source of funding building of new homes. If it had been set up in a way that meant for every home that left council stock another one at least had to be built, that would have been a long term engine putting more housing into the market. In the 60s council housing was nearly half the housing constructed. Today private sector new building isn't much different from the 60s but council building is practically zero. If we hadn't let that happen we'd have a lot more houses today. (Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7671/CBP-7671.pdf page 27 graph.)
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
Let us see some statistics then.
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
You look it up yourself. I'm off to have a bath.
We're talking about 1980 on and suddenly you pile in and want to restrict it to 2000 on. No, that's not going to do.
No, we're not, because 1980-2000 our population level was stable and our housing level kept up with our population level.
That's why in the 1990s there was no housing shortage or crisis.
The shortage did not begin in the 80s, or the 90s. It began in the 00s when construction and population growth failed to be in sync with each other. It has continued all century since.
There has been a more or less serious housing crisis for all of the 20th century. One reason being that the housing stock has always been actively deteriorating. Which means demolition.
It doesn't matter WHAT the topic is, Matthew "I will eat pages out of my book if Corbyn gets 40% of the vote" Goodwin will make it about immigration.
The man is an absolute joke, it's astonishing that intelligent people on here (which is everyone), repeats or posts ANYTHING he has to say without laughing at it.
My wife is a commercial model with an active Instagram account (several thousand followers). Blue tick verification.
Or she was until last night. Instagram took down her account permanently because of “account authenticity”. No appeals permitted - all her contacts and business dialogue vaporised.
Apparently the only way to address is to find a human at Instagram who is willing to make a request for a manual review by their team. Anyone have any contacts? Or any better suggestions?
Depending on how high profile, maybe an article in the press? Complete with link to a new account?
Thanks
Only well known among her circle of clients and business partners. The Daily Mail would love to write a story but I am wary of their take.
I don't blame you. The only thought that occurs to me is that finding an actual human at Instagram might be rather difficult for her on her own while a negative press story might unearth one very rapidly.
You are likely absolutely right.
But the daily mail is a dangerous tiger to try and ride.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
Wouldn't work. It would fragment building even more and use the skilled bricklayers (of which there are too few) even more inefficiently. I don't like it, as the other option is to rely on the big housebuilders, but the conflict is there.
Not a problem. Indeed, to the contrary, fragmentation is a good thing, it means competition and that no oligopoly can control the market.
Just pay bricklayers the wage they need to hire them, no need to be paying for Council permission, planning inspectors and all that other buillshit.
My wife is a commercial model with an active Instagram account (several thousand followers). Blue tick verification.
Or she was until last night. Instagram took down her account permanently because of “account authenticity”. No appeals permitted - all her contacts and business dialogue vaporised.
Apparently the only way to address is to find a human at Instagram who is willing to make a request for a manual review by their team. Anyone have any contacts? Or any better suggestions?
Try posting on LinkedIn. That's where most of the faang people I encounter hang out.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Really the Tories will be much happier in themselves once Labour has won the election and there is genuinely someone else running the country they can blame.
Matthew Goodwin can be a bit one note but his two way with Michael Portillo is very good.
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
If Islamism is such an issue why do people like Lee Anderson have to make up ludicrous stuff like saying the mayor of London is under Islamist control rather than highlighting all these genuine real life concerns?
Because he is an idiot. Are you denying that fear of Islamists was behind the unusual goings on in parliament last week ?
It probably was a factor, yes, and there are genuine concerns I'm sure, but there are also genuine concerns that the governing party seems to be absolutely bursting with anti Muslim bigotry, and unable to confront it because (a) they don't even seem able to recognise it as bigotry and (b) they're desperate for anti Muslim bigots to vote for them. Other people have made this point, but it seems to me that since Brexit the Tories have really been pursuing an "enemy within" narrative that is quite dangerous and repulsive.
Cobblers. The reason Anderson gets support for his (inaccurate) comments is because the entire party leadership is unprepared to call the problem by it's name. As for Brexit how do you explain what is going on in the rest of Europe where they are waking up to this. We need to accept that the problem is deep rotted within Islamic culture but does not apply to all strands of Islamic thinking or Muslims in general.
It's this kind of denial of the deep rot of anti Muslim prejudice in the Tory that explains why the problem in the party is only growing more deep rooted. They have a problem similar to Labour's struggles with antisemitism under Corbyn. Sunak really needs to get a grip on this issue, but can't because he's too weak.
I don't know what you mean by denial. I've no idea what the extent of anti Muslim feeling is inside the Conservative party, I'm not and never have been a voter or member. But previous Tory leaders have bent over backwards to avoid upsetting Muslims. Remember David Cameron's laughable claim that the BBC should stop calling ISIS Islamic State and that it had nothing to do with Islam. There has been no Tory leader equivalent of Corbyn thus far.
Sounds very similar to what people said about Corbyn.
Did he also claim ISIS had nothing to do with Islam?
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
That's Japan - that will not happen here for many reasons
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
Let us see some statistics then.
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
You look it up yourself. I'm off to have a bath.
We're talking about 1980 on and suddenly you pile in and want to restrict it to 2000 on. No, that's not going to do.
No, we're not, because 1980-2000 our population level was stable and our housing level kept up with our population level.
That's why in the 1990s there was no housing shortage or crisis.
The shortage did not begin in the 80s, or the 90s. It began in the 00s when construction and population growth failed to be in sync with each other. It has continued all century since.
There has been a more or less serious housing crisis for all of the 20th century. One reason being that the housing stock has always been actively deteriorating. Which means demolition.
No, the housing crisis we have today is a function of the 21st century.
In the 1990s housing was affordable as supply was keeping up with demand. You could buy a house for about 3x income not 10x income.
The crisis began in the 00s and the crisis is because any idiot who wants to pretend houses have externalities can block construction even though we have a growing population today, something we didn't have in the late 20th century.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
That's Japan - that will not happen here for many reasons
Politics is the only reason.
In Japan the politicians changed the planning system and in doing so they fixed their system and it works.
All we need is a politician with a majority in Parliament to say to hell with the NIMBYs and to rewrite the planning rules to a zonal code based system and remove the right of anyone, including Councils, to object or have a say in what people do with their own land so long as its zoned and to code.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
A neat point. However the Islamist one shouldn't be dismissed. As we saw last week fear of them now affects how Parliament behaves.
Particularly when the Tory SNP alliance goes out of its way to exploit that fear for their own gain (rebellions against Labour leadership simply from those in a type of constituency fearing not to)
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
Wouldn't work. It would fragment building even more and use the skilled bricklayers (of which there are too few) even more inefficiently. I don't like it, as the other option is to rely on the big housebuilders, but the conflict is there.
Not a problem. Indeed, to the contrary, fragmentation is a good thing, it means competition and that no oligopoly can control the market.
Just pay bricklayers the wage they need to hire them, no need to be paying for Council permission, planning inspectors and all that other buillshit.
Instant recipe for a massive housing disaster 10-15 years down the line. Especially as the brickies will often be untrained.
And you seem utterly convinced neighbours can stop development. I don't know if you have actually looked at any planning stuff, but in my experience they can't. It's controlled mainly by the kind of zonation you seem to think doesn't exist in the UK.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
Wouldn't work. It would fragment building even more and use the skilled bricklayers (of which there are too few) even more inefficiently. I don't like it, as the other option is to rely on the big housebuilders, but the conflict is there.
Not a problem. Indeed, to the contrary, fragmentation is a good thing, it means competition and that no oligopoly can control the market.
Just pay bricklayers the wage they need to hire them, no need to be paying for Council permission, planning inspectors and all that other buillshit.
Instant recipe for a massive housing disaster 10-15 years down the line. Especially as the brickies will often be untrained.
And you seem utterly convinced neighbours can stop development. I don't know if you have actually looked at any planning stuff, but in my experience they can't. It's controlled mainly by the kind of zonation you seem to think doesn't exist in the UK.
No disaster down the line, quite the opposite the disaster is here today because sufficient housing being built is being blocked from happening today. The disaster is already here.
Zoning + code without requiring permission does not exist in the UK.
In a proper zonal system anyone can build whatever they want, within code, without seeking permission first. No strings attached.
In the UK an oligopoly of developers who can play the system as it exists get permission, which is then largely denied to anyone else causing a lack of competition.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
That's Japan - that will not happen here for many reasons
Politics is the only reason.
In Japan the politicians changed the planning system and in doing so they fixed their system and it works.
All we need is a politician with a majority in Parliament to say to hell with the NIMBYs and to rewrite the planning rules to a zonal code based system and remove the right of anyone, including Councils, to object or have a say in what people do with their own land so long as its zoned and to code.
Local Plans Councils now produce are effectively close to building land zoned for housing.
Japan also has much tighter and more restricted immigration laws reducing demand for housing too
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
Let us see some statistics then.
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
You look it up yourself. I'm off to have a bath.
We're talking about 1980 on and suddenly you pile in and want to restrict it to 2000 on. No, that's not going to do.
No, we're not, because 1980-2000 our population level was stable and our housing level kept up with our population level.
That's why in the 1990s there was no housing shortage or crisis.
The shortage did not begin in the 80s, or the 90s. It began in the 00s when construction and population growth failed to be in sync with each other. It has continued all century since.
There has been a more or less serious housing crisis for all of the 20th century. One reason being that the housing stock has always been actively deteriorating. Which means demolition.
The only silver lining of high house prices is that an awful lot of housing stock has been renovated or extended or both.
When I was a child, you could spot the empty houses with roofs caved in from the slightly elevated railway line. It wasn’t worth repairing them. You don’t see that in the same area now - it’s worth repairing almost anything.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
That's Japan - that will not happen here for many reasons
Politics is the only reason.
In Japan the politicians changed the planning system and in doing so they fixed their system and it works.
All we need is a politician with a majority in Parliament to say to hell with the NIMBYs and to rewrite the planning rules to a zonal code based system and remove the right of anyone, including Councils, to object or have a say in what people do with their own land so long as its zoned and to code.
Local Plans Councils now produce are effectively close to building land zoned for housing.
Japan also has much tighter and more restricted immigration laws reducing demand for housing too
Land zoned for housing developments != zonal system.
In a zonal system then any land zoned for housing can be built upon without seeking permission first, within code. Including extensions, tearing down what is already there and rebuilding it, new builds etc, etc, etc - all without seeking permission, just stick to code and build within the zone.
Zoning a strip of land to a future development that will go to a developer with permission then not allowing anything else, that is not the same thing whatsoever.
Apparently the Tory membership is very upset over Anderson’s suspension . I think this sums up why they should never be allowed anywhere near picking the Tory leader .
Actually, it shows how well Anderson is playing the role. He is there to keep the core Conservative vote from slipping any further toward Reform. In truth, he says what CCHQ think the silenced majority are thinking and again, CCHQ probably think there's a lot of support for Anderson but which dare not speak its name.
Which is why I am even more convinced after this, the Reform vote goes to the Conservatives in the coming election campaign.
In just the same way Ali is shoe in Rochdale and probably beats Starmer’s stooge in Rochdale General Election contest, reform gets about 2% at the General Election and ALL THE REST GOES TO THE TORIES to stop Radical Islam from taking over the country.
Whatever Reform is getting in opinion polls, you have to get used to adding the whole lot to the Con score and then putting it into seat calculators for a more accurate idea where we are right now.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Council/social or *any* house?
Total as far as I know
Indeed. Here's the graph;
Striking thing is that private enterprise housebuilding is so stable; 100 000 to 200 000 or so, even before permissable land shortages were as acute as they are now. Certainly nowhere near enough by themselves.
I wonder if the action of the invisible hand has got itself caught in an awkward corner where that is the optimal number of new homes for the market to deliver- go too much above that and they don't sell (or sell for less total profit). See the way that housebuilding has fallen off in response to the slowing market.
And that the only way to shake the market out of that particular bit of failure is to have someone large saying "just build the bloody things, I'll find someone to live in them." Which needn't be councils, but it is the role they played up to the 1980s.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Totally right. I never understood why councils were so short sighted in this. I also think that the idea of residents in council housing getting to buy then at reduced rates is a double present. Council houses now are extremely hard to get, and all to often there is a perception that they go to certain types of people. That may or may not be reality, but it’s what a lot of people think.
Didn't Thatcher stop local councils from using the money from sales from being recycled to build new council houses?
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Council/social or *any* house?
Total as far as I know
Indeed. Here's the graph;
Striking thing is that private enterprise housebuilding is so stable; 100 000 to 200 000 or so, even before permissable land shortages were as acute as they are now. Certainly nowhere near enough by themselves.
I wonder if the action of the invisible hand has got itself caught in an awkward corner where that is the optimal number of new homes for the market to deliver- go too much above that and they don't sell (or sell for less total profit). See the way that housebuilding has fallen off in response to the slowing market.
And that the only way to shake the market out of that particular bit of failure is to have someone large saying "just build the bloody things, I'll find someone to live in them." Which needn't be councils, but it is the role they played up to the 1980s.
I don't think so, its simply that we don't have a free market.
If we had a free market in construction, then if a developer slow-built a development they'd be beaten to market by a competitor who'd make the profit instead.
Japan has a stable population and more builds than we have with our fast growing population, without aa single large buyer insisting that it gets done, instead they have a free market which is functional and works.
Its not rocket science, just don't prevent people from building stuff and then they do.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Council/social or *any* house?
Total as far as I know
Indeed. Here's the graph;
Striking thing is that private enterprise housebuilding is so stable; 100 000 to 200 000 or so, even before permissable land shortages were as acute as they are now. Certainly nowhere near enough by themselves.
I wonder if the action of the invisible hand has got itself caught in an awkward corner where that is the optimal number of new homes for the market to deliver- go too much above that and they don't sell (or sell for less total profit). See the way that housebuilding has fallen off in response to the slowing market.
And that the only way to shake the market out of that particular bit of failure is to have someone large saying "just build the bloody things, I'll find someone to live in them." Which needn't be councils, but it is the role they played up to the 1980s.
I'd say that graph conclusively absolves Thatcher of any real blame. She inherited declining new home completions and turned things around.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Not really, since its rather negligible. How crucial is that?
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
Not negligible at all. Anyone who was here in the 1960s on will be very aware of the huge numbers of both privately owned and council housing that was demolished 1950-2000.
Let us see some statistics then.
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
You look it up yourself. I'm off to have a bath.
We're talking about 1980 on and suddenly you pile in and want to restrict it to 2000 on. No, that's not going to do.
No, we're not, because 1980-2000 our population level was stable and our housing level kept up with our population level.
That's why in the 1990s there was no housing shortage or crisis.
The shortage did not begin in the 80s, or the 90s. It began in the 00s when construction and population growth failed to be in sync with each other. It has continued all century since.
There has been a more or less serious housing crisis for all of the 20th century. One reason being that the housing stock has always been actively deteriorating. Which means demolition.
The only silver lining of high house prices is that an awful lot of housing stock has been renovated or extended or both.
When I was a child, you could spot the empty houses with roofs caved in from the slightly elevated railway line. It wasn’t worth repairing them. You don’t see that in the same area now - it’s worth repairing almost anything.
As I commented earlier my daughter and son in law and 2 neighbours have undertaken extensive extensions to their homes as is my son and daughter in law planning to do later this year.
Basically it is cheaper to extend than to move especially when you add in stamp duty, estate agent and legal fees plus issues with chains failing through
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
That's Japan - that will not happen here for many reasons
Politics is the only reason.
In Japan the politicians changed the planning system and in doing so they fixed their system and it works.
All we need is a politician with a majority in Parliament to say to hell with the NIMBYs and to rewrite the planning rules to a zonal code based system and remove the right of anyone, including Councils, to object or have a say in what people do with their own land so long as its zoned and to code.
Local Plans Councils now produce are effectively close to building land zoned for housing.
Japan also has much tighter and more restricted immigration laws reducing demand for housing too
Land zoned for housing developments != zonal system.
In a zonal system then any land zoned for housing can be built upon without seeking permission first, within code. Including extensions, tearing down what is already there and rebuilding it, new builds etc, etc, etc - all without seeking permission, just stick to code and build within the zone.
Zoning a strip of land to a future development that will go to a developer with permission then not allowing anything else, that is not the same thing whatsoever.
In land allocated for development in Local Plans the presumption is in favour of development, so yes it is very close to that actually.
Extensions to houses make no difference whatsoever to our need for new homes and of course Japan does have planning regulations too.
'Applying for planning permission is necessary for building or renovating a property in Japan. Here are the general procedures:
Submit an application to the local government authority responsible for the area where the property is located Provide detailed plans and specifications of the proposed building or renovation work Wait for approval before commencing any work Listed building status, conservation areas, and preservation orders in Japan are known as “cultural properties” and are subject to strict regulations. Altering or renovating cultural properties must be done with great care to maintain their historical significance.' https://www.expatfocus.com/japan/guide/japan-property-building-and-renovation
Comments
After they got over the shock of “Death To The East” as a counter conversational gambit, some of them were quite entertaining, in a rabid, unwashed kind of way.
Its worth noting too that your reforms are a pro-Laffer reform too. Reducing taxes on those working for a living will make people work more, which is good for the economy.
Increasing taxes on those who are not working for their income may cost votes, but won't have a negative impact on the economy.
The only reason we tax pensioners less than workers is politics, not economics. If economics ruled the roost, it would be the inverse.
It's been a Laffer!
IE tax unearned incomes the most, but tax workers less, so people continue to work but those who aren't working for their income (so can't avoid work to avoid the tax) are plucked for tax.
This idea from senior Conservatives that someone else is really running the country (the Deep State, Islamists, people with podcasts etc) is a reminder of how Brexit created a vacancy for governing parties looking for someone else to blame
Hence I want her put on trial for treason and war crimes.
“adhered to the king's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in his realm or elsewhere”
If Keir Starmer wins a landslide and wants to be "brave" that should be done in his first term in office.
Yes those who lose from the reform will squeal, but it would also generate taxes without increasing the burden any further on people working for a living.
Starmer doesn't strike me as brave though.
Dylan Difford
@Dylan_Difford
Polls currently imply a record 15½-point swing to Labour. But where is this swing coming from and can it be undone?
The largest component is Tory defections to Labour (around a third of the swing), but losses to Reform and Don't Know/Not Voting are also big parts of the story.
Problem: Only around a 4-pt swing is needed for the Conservatives to lose their majority. Labour have likely attained this purely through natural turnover (deaths/new voters) and gains from other parties/non voters. Tories could gain back every voter they’ve lost and still lose.
https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1761738302636397041
Start there.
@Tomorrow'sMPs
@tomorrowsmps
·
5h
🔴 Labour NEC member Ann Black has apparently told the WhatsApp group for secretaries of constituency parties that almost all the selections for remaining seats will be appointed by NEC panels, without a role for local members.
https://twitter.com/lukepbeasley/status/1761533225388683463
I'm saying the opposite.
A religious fundamentalist loves to have a simple, clear, precise agenda to follow that says "this is the word of God" (Thor, Allah, Yahweh, whatever) and that this "divine truth" is the way it is and must be.
I'm saying its messy and complex, with multiple real world dependencies and interactions, and so we can't be certain.
Those are polar opposites.
Whilst I expect them to cling to office as long as decent and then a bit, power (and its resulting responsibility ) now exhausts and scares them.
"Anti-Muslim hate incidents in Britain TRIPLE since Hamas' assault on Israel - with women bearing the brunt of racist attacks, watchdog reports"
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1761729374800216077
Particularly striking is what is going on in Denmark and Sweden. Goodwin states Europe is really waking up to the Islamist issue and we are behind the curve. Will a Labour government be up to it?
Both disagree with Lee Anderson but if our political and media elite continue to dance around the issue where else are people going to look?
Taxation response is really interesting stuff - the four-day week an obvious example. In Scotland we have the prospect of people moving south because of higher tax rates, but free uni education is worth £36,000 per kid for middle class parents.
And humans aren't robots. I imagine the curve moves around quite a bit depending on the quality of public services and the sense of a social contract. For truly public goods like the public realm, the armed forces, police and the courts and so on, I would guess people would be happier to pay more tax.
My home town has a truly stunning park, woodlands, town hall, historical schools, churches, all paid for by the local landed gentry. How is that sentiment represented in an estimate of a curve?
Anneliese Dodds
@AnnelieseDodds
·
7h
Why are senior Conservatives finding it so hard to call out Islamophobia?
Perhaps because the Conservatives still refuse to adopt the definition used by every other major political party in Britain.
Kemi Badenoch
@KemiBadenoch
We use the term “Anti-Muslim hatred”. It makes clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom AND the freedom to criticise religion.
The definition of “Islamophobia” she uses creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted.
This isn't some 4D chess.
Doesn't matter what he's said, only their electoral prospects. Morally bankrupt the lot of them.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
It’s not something that threatens to capture the levers of power akin to say the Mafia in Italy, Evangelicals in the US Supreme Court or indeed Islamism itself in Turkey.
Republicans at CPAC 2024 are openly vowing to take down democracy.
Conservative activist Jack Posobiec joyfully hailed the “end of democracy” at the Conservative Political Action Conference, further emphasizing Republicans’ apparent desire to completely overthrow America as we know it.
https://newrepublic.com/post/179247/jack-posobiec-democracy-cpac-2024
If us voters elect Trump they will never get him and his anointed successor out.
(a) didn't get all the money from sales
(b) weren't allowed to spend what they did get on new council houses, much ofd the time
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/right-to-buy-replacement-social-housing-b1820016.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy
Next up - Apple Falls On Mans Head.
Sadly, she was under a desk sheltering from the blob while sacking her Chancellor.
Or was she busy killing the Queen?
It's all such a blur.
Like the Labour manifesto.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I'd like to see anything remotely like the 14 million rise in population that we've had.
The issue is people standing in the way of building new homes, using bullshit arguments pretending that homes have externalities etc when its people that do instead.
I don't especially care left or right, but broadly it seems dogmatic to me. Dogmatic and basically 'local government can go f*ck itself, we know best".
1950-2000 our population level was stable, and demolishing homes was netted out by constructing new ones.
2000-present our population has surged, and new housing hasn't kept up with that.
I'd love to see any statistics showing that demolished homes this century have been a major net problem. New homes though should have more than exceeded those, but new homes haven't kept up with population growth, we need to build more.
It is crazy that people can object to having stuff installed because they don’t like how it looks. Screw that.
Just last week a new mast was rejected in my patch for “visual intrusion”. It’s in London, 400m away from a council estate and 400m away from another mast…
We're talking about 1980 on and suddenly you pile in and want to restrict it to 2000 on. No, that's not going to do.
I won't hold my breath that they will, but if they do, they will both deserve and get my vote.
This is the right thing to do, that trumps party politics.
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
That's why in the 1990s there was no housing shortage or crisis.
The shortage did not begin in the 80s, or the 90s. It began in the 00s when construction and population growth failed to be in sync with each other. It has continued all century since.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
The man is an absolute joke, it's astonishing that intelligent people on here (which is everyone), repeats or posts ANYTHING he has to say without laughing at it.
But the daily mail is a dangerous tiger to try and ride.
Just pay bricklayers the wage they need to hire them, no need to be paying for Council permission, planning inspectors and all that other buillshit.
In the 1990s housing was affordable as supply was keeping up with demand. You could buy a house for about 3x income not 10x income.
The crisis began in the 00s and the crisis is because any idiot who wants to pretend houses have externalities can block construction even though we have a growing population today, something we didn't have in the late 20th century.
In Japan the politicians changed the planning system and in doing so they fixed their system and it works.
All we need is a politician with a majority in Parliament to say to hell with the NIMBYs and to rewrite the planning rules to a zonal code based system and remove the right of anyone, including Councils, to object or have a say in what people do with their own land so long as its zoned and to code.
And you seem utterly convinced neighbours can stop development. I don't know if you have actually looked at any planning stuff, but in my experience they can't. It's controlled mainly by the kind of zonation you seem to think doesn't exist in the UK.
Zoning + code without requiring permission does not exist in the UK.
In a proper zonal system anyone can build whatever they want, within code, without seeking permission first. No strings attached.
In the UK an oligopoly of developers who can play the system as it exists get permission, which is then largely denied to anyone else causing a lack of competition.
Japan also has much tighter and more restricted immigration laws reducing demand for housing too
When I was a child, you could spot the empty houses with roofs caved in from the slightly elevated railway line. It wasn’t worth repairing them. You don’t see that in the same area now - it’s worth repairing almost anything.
In a zonal system then any land zoned for housing can be built upon without seeking permission first, within code. Including extensions, tearing down what is already there and rebuilding it, new builds etc, etc, etc - all without seeking permission, just stick to code and build within the zone.
Zoning a strip of land to a future development that will go to a developer with permission then not allowing anything else, that is not the same thing whatsoever.
In just the same way Ali is shoe in Rochdale and probably beats Starmer’s stooge in Rochdale General Election contest, reform gets about 2% at the General Election and ALL THE REST GOES TO THE TORIES to stop Radical Islam from taking over the country.
Whatever Reform is getting in opinion polls, you have to get used to adding the whole lot to the Con score and then putting it into seat calculators for a more accurate idea where we are right now.
Striking thing is that private enterprise housebuilding is so stable; 100 000 to 200 000 or so, even before permissable land shortages were as acute as they are now. Certainly nowhere near enough by themselves.
I wonder if the action of the invisible hand has got itself caught in an awkward corner where that is the optimal number of new homes for the market to deliver- go too much above that and they don't sell (or sell for less total profit). See the way that housebuilding has fallen off in response to the slowing market.
And that the only way to shake the market out of that particular bit of failure is to have someone large saying "just build the bloody things, I'll find someone to live in them." Which needn't be councils, but it is the role they played up to the 1980s.
If we had a free market in construction, then if a developer slow-built a development they'd be beaten to market by a competitor who'd make the profit instead.
Japan has a stable population and more builds than we have with our fast growing population, without aa single large buyer insisting that it gets done, instead they have a free market which is functional and works.
Its not rocket science, just don't prevent people from building stuff and then they do.
Basically it is cheaper to extend than to move especially when you add in stamp duty, estate agent and legal fees plus issues with chains failing through
Extensions to houses make no difference whatsoever to our need for new homes and of course Japan does have planning regulations too.
'Applying for planning permission is necessary for building or renovating a property in Japan. Here are the general procedures:
Submit an application to the local government authority responsible for the area where the property is located
Provide detailed plans and specifications of the proposed building or renovation work
Wait for approval before commencing any work
Listed building status, conservation areas, and preservation orders in Japan are known as “cultural properties” and are subject to strict regulations. Altering or renovating cultural properties must be done with great care to maintain their historical significance.'
https://www.expatfocus.com/japan/guide/japan-property-building-and-renovation